Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Present appeal has been filed by Satnam Singh, Gopal Kaur, Gattu and Sukha Singh. They were tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar in a case arising out of FIR No.6 dated 5.1.2000 registered at Police Station Khem Karan, under Sections 352, 509, 376/511/120-B IPC. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide the impugned judgment dated 9.12.2002 held the appellant Gattu guilty of offence under Section 376/511 and 352 and 509 IPC. However, Sukha Singh, Satnam Singh and Gopal Kaur were convicted under Section 376/511 read with Section 120-B, 352/120-B and 509/120-B IPC. Vide a separate order of even date, the appellants were sentenced as under:-

Gattu U/s 376/511 IPC - RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for three months.
U/s 352 IPC - RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for 15 days.
U/s 509 IPC - Simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further SI for one month.

Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all incriminating circumstances put to them and pleaded false implication. No witness was examined in defence.

A perusal of the charges framed will reveal that no charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC was framed against the other accused except Gattu. Sukha Singh and Satnam Singh are said to have given only fist blows and had torn shirt of the sister of the prosecutrix. For tearing off the shirt of the sister of the prosecutrix,no charge under Section 376/511 or 354 IPC has been framed qua accused Sukha Singh and Satnam Singh.

In Shiv Shanker v. State of U.P., 2002 Criminal Law Journal 2673, a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held as under:

"43. The appellant was also charged with the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge had also convicted and sentenced the appellant under said Sections. But having gone through the evidence on record, we find that the evidence of the prosecution was to the effect that the appellant caught hold of Smt.Usha Devi and made her fall down. There was no sufficient evidence on record to show that the appellant attempted to commit rape on the deceased. The medical evidence also did not indicate any such attempt. The catching hold of the deceased and making her fall down cannot be said an attempt to rape, but it amounted to assault or force used to outrage the modesty of the deceased. Therefore, though there was no sufficient evidence to make out the offence punishable under Section 376 read with 511 I.P.C., we are of the view that conviction of appellant under Section 376/511 I.P.C. Is liable to be converted into conviction under Section 354 I.P.C."