JOGINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal on certificate issued by the Delhi High Court, the appellant who is governed by the Army Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) challenges the legality of his trial and conviction for an offence under S. 376 I.P.C.

(2.) The main attack levelled against the proceedings is that the material provisions of the Army Act read with the Criminal Courts and Court-Martial (Adjustment of Jurisdiction) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed by the Central Government under S. 549 (1), Cr. P.C. have not been complied with by the Assistant Sessions Judge. The prosecution case is briefly as follows:

(3.) The appellant was a military personnel attached to Punjab Regiment No. 24, which moved to Nahan on March 3, 1967. The appellant was a Lance Naik and was appointed as a temporary Granthi of the Katcha- Johar temple used by the military personnel. One Jiwa Nand with his wife and children was living close by the temple. On March 8, 1967 at about 8.30 a.m. Gayatri " Devi aged about 10 years and daughter of Jiwa Nand was called by the appellant and when she came near him she was taken inside the adjoining room where the appellant had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The victim narrated the occurrence to her mother and sister. When Gayatri Devi, her mother and certain others were proceeding towards the Cantonment to complain to the military authorities, they met 4 or 5 Sikh gentlemen and Gayatri Devi pointed out the appellant in that group as the one who had misbehaved with her. The Sikh gentlemen, who were in military uniform declined to permit Gayatri Devi and others to go inside the Cantonment area on the ground that the entry into the same was prohibited to non-military personnel. Later on the father of Gayatri Devi took her to the police station and lodged a report Ex. 12/A. The accused pleaded alibi and denied the offence. He also let in defence evidence. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and disbelieving the plea of the appellant convicted him of the offence under S. 376 I. P. C. and sentenced him to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, who confirmed the conviction and sentence.