Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Appellant-Amit has directed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.1.2006 passed by Shri A.K.Shori, learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court ) Sonepat vide which accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 363, 366-A, 376-G, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short - the IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for one year under Section 376(ii)(g) of the IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for each offence and in default thereof to further undergo SI for six months under Section 363 and 366-A of the IPC for each of the offence and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for each offence under Section 345 and 506 of the IPC for each of the offence. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 22.7.2005 ASI Ranjeet Singh along with HC Sukhbir and lady constable Maneesha was present near 20th mile stone, on GT Road, Sonepat at about 3.00p.m. in connection with patrolling duties. At that juncture prosecutrix approached ASI Ranjeet Singh while she was being accompanied by her parents. Said prosecutrix got recorded her statement with ASI Ranjeet Singh that she is student of 8th standard of Moti Lal Nehru Sports School Rai and her father Raj Singh is working as Mess Assistant in the said school. On 19.7.2005 at about 5.30p.m., she had started from her house for proceeding to Sonepat in order to make certain purchases. Soon after she came out of the school on GT road, a jeep having white colour came from the side of Sevli Road being driven by Amit accused and his co-accused Satpal (since juvenile) was sitting on the co-driver seat. Prosecutrix gave signal to the jeep to stop as she wanted lift for Sonepat. The jeep was stopped by accused and she asked him if they were proceeding towards Sonepat and when they nodded to the same and she boarded the jeep. From a chowk on GT Road, accused Amit turned the jeep towards Delhi which was resisted by the prosecutrix and she stated that she was to go to Sonepat and why the jeep was turned towards Delhi. Upon this co-accused Satpal threatened prosecutrix that she should keep mum otherwise she would be eliminated. She was forced to bow her head and was forcibly taken to Delhi in the area of Azadpur. Both accused took her to a room in Azadpur at Delhi and they had disclosed their identity to her. Thereafter both the accused committed rape with her turn by turn after giving threats to her and she kept on weeping and cried also. She was wrongfully confined in the said room throughout the night. Both the accused disclosed her that they were wrestlers and were doing the exercise for wrestling in the Akhara of Chandroop. In the next morning at about 5.00a.m. the prosecutrix made an excuse for going to toilet and after coming out of the room she escaped from the clutches of the accused and came to Karnal by pass. From there she boarded a bus and came down to her house. At that time mother of prosecutrix was away as she had gone to house of her maternal uncle. On 21.7.2005 her mother returned and the prosecutrix told the entire incident to her mother. Therefore they approached the police. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. The accused were arrested. After completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in the Court for trial.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to the accused persons and the case was committed to the Court of Session. Accused Satya Pal was declared Juvenile, therefore, his case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat for trial. On finding a prima facie case, accused-Amit was charge-sheeted under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(g), 342 and 506 of the IPC. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

5. To substantiate its case, prosecution has examined Dr. Anvita as PW-1, Dr. O.P. Lohan as PW-2, T.C.Kathuria, Deputy Superintendent, Rai Sports School, Rai, as PW-3, prosecutrix herself appeared as PW-4, Raj Singh father of the prosecutrix as PW-5, Constable Inder Pal as PW-6 , ASI Rajpati mother of the prosecutrix as PW-7, ASI Ranjeet Singh as PW-8 and closed the evidence of the prosecution.

19. It is also not disputed that Satpal is the co-accused against whom also there are charges under Section 376(2)(g) of the Act for raping prosecutrix. It is also not disputed that said Satpal was put to trial before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board and vide judgment Ex.AX produced in the appeal file dated 6.3.2006, said Satpal had been acquitted. From the judgment dated 6.3.2006, it is revealed that prosecutrix has not supported the case of the prosecution at all against accused Satpal. Father of the prosecutrix has also not supported the case of the prosecution before Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board. Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat has acquitted Satpal in respect of the offence in question. Rajasthan High Court in case Kunji's case (supra) has held that in case the co-accused is acquitted in respect of the same allegations, in that case, the other accused cannot be convicted on the same set of allegations.