Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asha Rani And Another vs State Of Haryana on 19 July, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.887-SB of 1998
Date of Decision : July 19, 2010
Asha Rani and another ....Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate.
Mr. Shakti Singh Chauhan, Asst. Advocate General, Haryana.
T.P.S. MANN, J.
Vide impugned judgment and order dated 23/26.10.1998, Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal convicted the appellants for offences under Sections 366-A, 363/34 and 292 IPC. Roshan Lal appellant was also convicted under Sections 377, 354, 409 and 506 IPC. Both of them were sentenced as under :-
(a) rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 366-A IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1¾ years;
(b) rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offences under Section 363 read with Section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months;
and Criminal Appeal No.887-SB of 1998 -2-
(c) rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 292 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
In addition, Roshan Lal appellant was sentenced as follows:-
(a) rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 377 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for nine months;
(b) rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 354 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months;
(c) rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 409 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months; and
(d) rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 506 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 22 days.
Criminal Appeal No.887-SB of 1998 -3-All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Complainant-Smt.Bimla, wife of Rishi Pal, resident of Mrigpur, Police Station Dev Ganj, District Saharanpur, who was residing in Quarter No.100, LIG Madhuban Complex, Madhuban appeared before SI Kashmiri Lal, Incharge Police Post Pucca Pul, Madhuban on 5.2.1996 and made a statement Ex. PA wherein she alleged that appellant- Roshan Lal was working as a Sub Inspector in State Crime Record Bureau(SCRB), Madhuban and appellant-Smt. Asha Rani was his wife. Both of them were residing in Quarter No.37, SCRB, Madhuban Complex, Madhuban. The complainant's daughter (hereinafter referred to as prosecutrix No.1 and in short 'P1'), was aged nine years, whereas HC Rajinder Singh's daughter (hereinafter referred to as prosecutrix No.2 and in short 'P2') was 5/6 years of age. HC Rajinder Singh was posted at Chandigarh, although he used to reside in House No.105, LIG, Madhuban Complex, Madhuban. Both, P1 and P2, used to go to the house of appellant Roshan Lal for having private coaching from his wife Smt. Asha Rani. Other children also used to go to the said house for receiving private coaching. On 4.2.1996 at about 11.00 A.M., as usual, both P1 and P2 went to the house of Roshan Lal for coaching. They returned to their houses at 1.00 P.M. Roshan Lal- appellant then came and took them on a scooter while they were playing in front of their quarter. They returned at about 3.00 P.M. The Criminal Appeal No.887-SB of 1998 -4- complainant asked her daughter P1 as to where she had gone. P1 replied that the appellant had taken her and P2 on scooter to his office and there he made both of them naked. She further told her mother that Roshan Lal had taken their photographs. Thereafter, he put his male organ into the mouth of P2 and asked P1 to press the button of camera, which she did. P1 further told her mother that Roshan Lal also inserted his male organ in her mouth and asked P2 to take the photograph in that posture. P2 clicked the photograph. In fact, a number of photographs were taken. Roshan Lal threatened P1 and P2 that in case they disclosed about the episode to anyone, he would kill them, besides black-mailing them by showing their photographs to the children in their schools and to their respective parents. The complainant called P2 and her mother Smt. Surender Kaur. P2 also repeated the same story as stated by P1. The complainant, accordingly, prayed for taking appropriate action against the appellants.
After making an endorsement Ex.PA/2, SI Kashmiri Lal sent statement Ex.PA to Police Station Sadar, Karnal where FIR Ex.PA/1 was recorded. During investigation, both the appellants were arrested. Accused-Roshan Lal made a disclosure statement and got recovered some obscene photographs, their negatives and sketches drawn with pencil. Accused-Roshan Lal also made another statement with regard to having carnal intercourse with another girl, besides P1 and P2 and keeping their photographs in those positions alongwith a Criminal Appeal No.887-SB of 1998 -5- blue film and some obscene photographs at his native village Hassanpur. On the basis of that statement, he got recovered obscene photographs, a blue film, some photostat copies of obscene photographs, a magazine and a VCP. On 9.2.1996, accused-Roshan Lal made another disclosure statement with regard to keeping two blue films at his quarter within the area of Madhuban complex and on the basis of the same, he got recovered two cassettes which were taken into possession. The police also took into possession the camera allegedly used by the accused for taking obscene photographs. Two photographs of P1 and P2 were produced by their respective fathers and the same were taken into possession. The scooter used by accused-Roshan Lal in committing the crime was taken into possession.
During course of investigation, it also transpired that accused- Smt. Asha Rani had been instrumental in satisfying the carnal pleasure of her husband Roshan Lal, who had been inserting his male organ earlier also in the mouths of P1 and P2 and other young girls. Necessary sanction Ex.PC was obtained for launching prosecution against accused-Roshan Lal. Statements of witnesses were recorded.
Upon completion of investigation, the police presented the challan against the appellants. Following commitment of the case, both the accused were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 366-A, 363 read with 34, 377, 354, 409, 292, 201 and 506 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Criminal Appeal No.887-SB of 1998 -6-
In support of its case, the prosecution examined P1 as PW1, P2 as PW2, one another young girl as PW3, Smt. Bimla-complainant as PW4, Smt. Surender Kaur as PW5, ASI Lila Ram ASI as PW6, C. Mulakh Raj as PW7, Jasbir Singh as PW8, DSP Balbir Singh as PW9, SI Jagir Singh as PW10, C. Isham Singh as PW11, Spattar Singh as PW12, HC Roshan Lal as PW13, C. Phool Kumar as PW14, C. Prabhu Dayal as PW15, C. Jai Bhagwan as PW16, a young boy as PW17, SI Kashmiri Lal as PW18, SI Surinder Kumar as PW19, Sukhbir Singh as PW20, Mam Raj, Clerk as PW21, DSP Ashok Kumar as PW22 and closed its case.
The accused, while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the version of prosecution in toto and pleaded false implication. A specific plea was taken by accused-Roshan Lal that his false photographs were taken forcibly by a private photographer opposite Civil Hospital, Karnal under the pressure of the police. Then accused Smt. Asha Rani took a plea that she has been falsely implicated in this case. Moreover, no Hindu wife would incite her husband for acts falsely attributed to her by the prosecution. They examined DW1 Sumer Singh, Ahlmad and DW2 Shri N.P. Dewat, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ambala Cantt. and also tendered in evidence documents Exs.DL, DM, DN, DO and DQ.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the Criminal Appeal No.887-SB of 1998 -7- appellants, as mentioned above.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the sanction obtained by the prosecution to prosecute Roshan Lal-appellant was defective and illegal. No reasons had been given by the authority while granting sanction. Moreover, it was not proved as to whether Shri M.S. Ahlawat, IPS was the Appointing Authority of Roshan Lal- appellant.
From the testimony of PW8 SI Jasbir Singh, it stands established that Roshan Lal-appellant had been posted as HC in 5th Battalion, HAP, Madhuban and was on deputation with State Crime Record Bureau, Madhuban as a Photographer. Upon receiving a letter from Superintendent of Police, Karnal, requisite sanction was granted by Shri M.S. Ahlawat, IPS, the then Commandant, 5th Battalion, HAP, Madhuban. He also stated that sanction order Ex.PC was dictated to him by the Commandant and he typed it out. As Shri M.S. Ahlawat, IPS stood posted as Commandant, 5th Battalion, HAP, Madhuban, he was the Appointing Authority of Roshan Lal-appellant and, thus, competent to dismiss him. Similarly, a perusal of sanction order Ex.PC would reveal that Shri M.S. Ahlawat, Commandant had applied his mind before granting sanction for prosecution of Roshan Lal-appellant.
The next argument submitted by learned counsel for the appellants relates to possession of objectionable/obscene material by Criminal Appeal No.887-SB of 1998 -8- Roshan Lal-appellant. There was no evidence that such a material had been kept by him for the purposes of sale, hire, distribution or circulation.
From the testimony of PW9 Balbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW10 SI Jagir Singh, PW18 SI Kashmiri Lal and PW20 Sukhbir Singh, it had been established by the prosecution that Roshan Lal appellant got recovered obscene photographs alongwith their negatives Exs.P4 to P14 and P15 to P17. Two video cassettes of blue films Exs.P105 and P106 were also recovered from the possession of Roshan Lal. The testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses could not be shattered by the defence despite cross-examining them at length. Therefore, none of the appellants can escape liability for the offence under Section 292 IPC.
Another argument submitted by learned counsel for the appellants is that no offence under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC was made out against the appellants as the parents of P1 and P2 had been willingly sending them to the house of the appellants and there is no question of their being kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of their parents.
The parents of P1 and P2 had been sending them to the house of the appellants for the purpose of private coaching. However, at no point of time, they ever sent them to their house for being subjected Criminal Appeal No.887-SB of 1998 -9- to illegal acts. Besides, there is evidence on the file that whenever P1 and P2 used to go to the house of the appellants for private coaching, appellant-Asha Rani would induce them to accompany her husband Roshan Lal for clicking photographs. Moreover, appellant-Asha Rani used to threaten P1 and P2 that in case they disclosed about the action of her husband to anyone they would be done to death.
Roshan Lal-appellant stood posted as a Photographer with State Crime Record Bureau, Madhuban. His duty required him to take photographs with the help of a camera. However, being a public servant, he misused his position and used the camera and photo-films for taking naked photographs of P1, P2 and other young girls.
It is apparent from the testimonies of P1, P2 as well as one young girl and a boy, who appeared as PWs 3 and 17, respectively, that Roshan Lal-appellant used to commit carnal intercourse with them. This made him liable for the offence under Section 377 IPC. Besides, in order to satisfy his lust, he used to take photographs of the young girls after making them naked and inserting his male organ into their mouths. The victims were girls and a boy of tender years, who did not understand as to what he had been doing with them. He had also been threatening the victims with dire consequences in case they reported the matter to their parents.
The complicity of Asha Rani-appellant in the crime was Criminal Appeal No.887-SB of 1998 -10- also writ large. Initially, the allegations were made by the complainant against Roshan Lal-appellant alone. During investigation, it surfaced that Smt.Asha Rani had been helping her husband Roshan Lal to satisfy his carnal pleasure. However, her case can be considered only for the purpose of quantum of sentence as possibility cannot be ruled out that she, being an innocent woman, must have been acting at the instance of her husband. Besides, she had been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last 14 years.
Upshot of the above discussion leads me to conclude that the prosecution had been able to establish its case against the appellants. Both the appellants had been rightly convicted by the trial Court. Even the sentence of imprisonment awarded to Roshan Lal was commensurate with the crime committed by him. However, the substantive sentence of Smt. Asha Rani-appellant of seven years under Section 366-A IPC deserves to be reduced to 3½ years.
Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants for the various offences as recorded by the trial Court, is maintained. The sentences of imprisonment and fine, alongwith their default clauses imposed upon Roshan Lal-appellant are also maintained. The substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years imposed upon Asha Rani- appellant under Section 366-A IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3½ years. The sentence of fine, alongwith its default Criminal Appeal No.887-SB of 1998 -11- clause, for the said offence is maintained and so also her conviction and sentences of imprisonment and fine for the offences under Section 363 read with Section 34 and Section 292 IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment of both the appellants shall run concurrently.
The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
( T.P.S.MANN )
July 19, 2010 JUDGE
satish