Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raj Kumar Alias Raju vs State Of Punjab on 8 August, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.S-1079-SB of 2000
Date of Decision: August 08, 2013
Raj Kumar alias Raju
...Appellant
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.J.S.Mehandiratta, Advocate
Legal Aid Counsel,
for the appellant.
Mr.Yogesh Gupta, Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.10.2000, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby, he was held guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 363 IPC and further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 376 IPC. He was further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1079-SB of 2000 -2- further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 366-A IPC However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are that in the present case FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Rattan Lal, father of the prosecutrix, who mainly stated that prosecutrix was born in January 1982 and she had studied in DAV School, Batala and passed matriculation in the year 1996. Accused Raj Kumar son of Hans Raj was residing just opposite to the house of the complainant and was on visiting terms and he kidnapped his daughter on 25.05.1997 from his house. He further stated that he tried to know the whereabouts of his daughter from the family of the accused but they made one excuse or the other. He also stated that his daughter is minor and accused, who is aged about 22-25 years has kidnapped her and took her to some unknown place. This statement was recorded on 02.06.1997 on the basis of which FIR was registered. On 15.12.1997, ASI Gurwak Singh along with other police officials and one Madan Lal was present at the Railway Station, Batala, where Madan Lal identified the prosecutrix and she was accompanied by accused and was also having a child. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded. Custody of child and prosecutrix was handed over to Rattan Lal. Accused was arrested. Both the accused and prosecutrix were got medico legally examined. Rough site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused-appellant. Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1079-SB of 2000 -3-
On presentation of challan against accused-appellant, copies of challan and other documents were supplied to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Finding prima facie case, the accused-appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 363, 376 and 366-A IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.Avninder Pal Kaur, who medico legally examined the prosecutrix. She deposed that as per statement of the prosecutrix her L.M.P was 14.12.97 and according to the findings, it was suggested that she had delivered a baby. PW-2 Rattan Lal, complainant mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW-3 Madan Lal, who was with the police party and who identified the prosecutrix at the Railway Station also deposed regarding those facts. PW-4 Sham Sunder Lal Sharma, Laboratory Technician mainly deposed regarding blood grouping report etc. PW-5 Dr.Gurpal Singh, Senior Medical Officer mainly deposed that he examined accused Raj Kumar and stated that no visible external injury was present on the body and there was nothing to suggest that the accused could not do sexual intercourse. PW-6 prosecutrix mainly deposed as per prosecution version. She deposed that in the year 1996, she was alone in her house. Accused entered in her house and bolted the outer-gate. Then he showed her knife and threatened her that in case she raised alarm, her father and brother would be finished. Then he committed rape upon her. She further deposed that whenever accused saw her alone in the house, he used to come to her house and commit rape with her. Due to Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1079-SB of 2000 -4- sexual intercourse by the accused, she became pregnant. She told the accused regarding her pregnancy and he asked her that he would take her outside for abortion. Then on 25.05.1997, accused kidnapped her and took her to Faridabad where he also used to commit rape upon her. Accused did not get the child aborted. Therefore, she gave birth to a son on 24.07.1997. Accused kept her at Faridabad for some time. No marriage had taken place with him. She further deposed that she asked accused to take her to her parents and ultimately he brought her to Batala and when they were present in waiting room of Railway Station, Batala, police party apprehended her and accused. She also stated that accused committed sexual intercourse and took her to Faridabad against her will and consent. She studied in DAV senior secondary school, Batala upto matric. She was also medico legally examined. She was examined by the police and her statement was recorded. PW-7 SI Balwinder Singh mainly deposed regarding recording of the FIR. PW- 8 Gurwak Singh, is the Investigating Officer, who mainly deposed regarding investigation conducted by him in the present case.
At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused- appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He further pleaded that this is a false case against him. A false story has been concocted against him by the police. Prosecutrix herself took him to Delhi as she had been pressuring him through letters and she performed marriage with her in the mandir and had been living with Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1079-SB of 2000 -5- him as his wife, who later on gave birth to a child, who is alive and he has not committed any offence. He further pleaded that prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age at the time of alleged occurrence.
No witness was examined in defence.
On the basis of the evidence produced by the prosecution, accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur.
At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Appellant has not committed offence of kidnapping the prosecutrix. He further pleaded that prosecutrix was major at that time and she performed marriage with the accused-appellant and she was consenting party. Otherwise also, she did not raise any hue and cry as she remained with the accused-appellant for about seven months. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, argued that there being merit in the appeal, it should be accepted and accused- appellant should be acquitted.
On the other hand, learned Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State has argued that prosecutrix has duly proved her case, which is supported and corroborated by medical evidence. The prosecutrix was minor at that time and she was taken away by the accused without consent of her guardian and he committed rape upon her as she was unable to give consent. He next contended that case of prosecution has been duly proved. Learned State counsel, therefore, argued that there being no merit, the appeal Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1079-SB of 2000 -6- should be dismissed.
I have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully and have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Asstt. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
From the evidence on record, I do not find merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. In the present case, prosecutrix has made statement that in the year 1996, rape has been committed upon her by the accused under threat. Accused- appellant, who was neighbour, used to commit rape upon her and when she became pregnant, then accused-appellant took her on the pretext that child will be aborted outside but she was kept by him for seven months. She gave birth in the month of July 1997, which supports and corroborates the version of the prosecutrix that in the year 1996 rape was committed upon her. There is no evidence on record to show the marriage of the prosecutrix with the accused- appellants. As per copy of birth certificate Ex.PE, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was shown as 26.02.1981. The kidnapping took place in the month of May 1997 and at the time prosecutrix was below the age of 18 years and was minor, therefore, the question of consent of the minor does not arise. She was taken away by the accused- appellant without the consent of the guardian of the prosecutrix, therefore, he committed offence under Section 363 IPC and further she was taken away for the purpose of marriage and committed sexual intercourse, the offence under Section 366A is already proved against the accused-appellant. There is nothing on the record to Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1079-SB of 2000 -7- show that the prosecutrix was major at the time of committing sexual intercourse. Rather, in the year 1996, when the accused-appellant used to commit sexual intercourse upon prosecutrix, at that time she was below the age of 16 years. I have perused the statement of the father of the prosecutrix. In cross-examination of PW-2 Rattan Lal, there is nothing to show that the prosecutrix was major at that time. In the statement of Rattan Lal Ex.PC, he has stated that his eldest daughter was born in 1972, second daughter was born in 1974. Then a son was born in 1980 and fourth daughter (prosecutrix) was born in the year 1982. Therefore, in view of this evidence also, it is clear that prosecutrix was minor when she was kidnapped and when sexual intercourse was committed by the accused-appellant upon her. So, in no way it can be held as a case of consenting party and case of valid consent.
The statement of the prosecutrix is duly supported by statement of PW-2 Rattan Lal, complainant and PW-3 Madan Lal. The oral evidence is duly supported and corroborated by the medical evidence. The birth of child from this relation further proves that accused-appellant raped upon the minor girl. Otherwise also, accused-appellant by stating that prosecutrix had married with him, admits the sexual intercourse on the minor girl.
Therefore, from the above I find that prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur are Gulati Vineet 2013.08.29 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Appeal No.S-1079-SB of 2000 -8- upheld.
Resultantly, the present appeal stands dismissed. As appellant Raj Kumar alias Raju is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender himself before the jail authorities immediately for completing remainder of sentence, failing which the concerned authority shall proceed against him in accordance with law.
(INDERJIT SINGH)
August 08, 2013 JUDGE
Vgulati
Gulati Vineet
2013.08.29 10:20
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh