RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 19-8-2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 146-SB of 1992 whereby the High Court has maintained the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant herein by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind vide judgment and order dated 6-3-1992. We have heard Mr. D. K. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajeev Gaur 'Naseem', learned Counsel for the State and perused the judgment impugned in this appeal and the evidence tendered in this case. According to the prosecution, on 9-3-1991, the prosecutrix Bimal was abducted by the appellant Ram Kumar and she was subjected to sexual intercourse by him. On 17-3-1991, an F.I.R. under Secs. 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the instance of the father of the girl, namely, Shri Sher Singh. On 29-3-1991, the girl was recovered and as per the statement made by Smt. Roshini (P.W. 7), the mother, she was brought by the police from Village Sirsawa on 29-3-1991 and on that date the police got the statement of the girl recorded in the Court of S.D.J.M., Safidon under Sec. 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On 30-3-1991 the case was committed to the Court of Session. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by order 6-3-1992 convicted the appellant under Secs. 366 and 376 of the Penal Code and sentenced him as under :

(2.) On appeal, the High Court by judgment and order dated 19-8-2004 confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant and passed the order as under :

(3.) The appellant, aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court has filed the above appeal by way of appeal. We have been taken through the statement and evidence recorded by the Court. Our attention was also drawn to the judgment passed by both the Sessions Court as well as the judgment passed by the High Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the statement of the girl Bimla (P.W. 5) and also drew our attention to the evidence of the Doctor. We have carefully analysed the evidence tendered by the prosecution. In our opinion, sufficient evidence was tendered by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. However, at the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that the girl has now got married and living with her husband. The said statement is also ratified by the evidence of the father of the girl. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and as affirmed by the High Court under Secs. 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code is on the high side. In our opinion, ends of justice would be amply met if we reduce the sentence to three years. We do so accordingly.