GULAB SINGH ALIAS KUNAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are being decided by this common judgment as these appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 28.02.2017, passed by learned Fast Track Court/ Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 335 of 2013, State Vs. Gulab Singh @ Kunal and another, whereby appellants Gulab Singh @ Kunal and Mukesh Kumar have been convicted under Section 376-D, 376 (2)(n), 307/34, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. and sentenced as hereunder:

(2.) Prosecution case, briefly stated is that the prosecutrix PW1 had an acquaintance with the appellant Gulab Singh @ Kunal since 2012, when by dialing a wrong number, she got in contact with him. Thereafter, they started speaking to each other. The appellant Gulab Singh @ Kunal introduced himself as an officer of the income tax department and had assured her a job in the income tax department, but for that he had asked the prosecutrix to visit Haridwar. Two days prior to the date of incident, the appellant Gulab Singh @ Kunal telephoned the prosecutrix, and asked her to come to Haridwar on 15.07.2013 for her interview. Believing the assurance of the appellant Gulab Singh @ Kunal, the prosecutrix reached Haridwar on 05.07.2013. At the bus stop, appellant Gulab Singh @ Kunal alongwith one of his friends, received her. He was in his car Swift Dzire, bearing registration no. UK-08-AB-3233. The vehicle had a plate on its front with the inscription 'Bharat Sarkar'. The appellant introduced the person accompanying him as the appellant Mukesh Garg, a senior officer in the income tax department. Appellant Gulab Singh @ Kunal also told the prosecutrix that as a formality, her interview has to be taken at Sukhdham Bhawan, Bhupatwala. Believing it once again, the prosecutrix boarded the car and reached Sukhdham Bhawan, where the appellants got room no.11 opened and they entered the room. As soon as they entered the room, the appellant Gulab Singh @ Kunal asked the prosecutrix to sleep with them, in return for the Government job. The prosecutrix was shocked to hear it, and she realized that she has been trapped. She tried to open the door and run away but both the appellants caught hold of her and dropped her to the bed. The clothes of the prosecutrix were forcibly removed and first the appellant Gulab Singh @ Kunal had sexual intercourse and oral sex with her, and then the appellant Mukesh Garg had sexual intercourse with her and then twice again, the appellant Gulab Singh @ Kunal had sexual intercourse with her. In this process, according to the first information report, both the appellants helped each other, by overpowering the prosecutrix. Somehow, the prosecutrix released herself from the clutches of the appellants and went inside the bathroom. She dialed police D.G.P. control room at number 9411112780, and informed about the incident and sought assistance. As the prosecutrix was in the bathroom, the appellants broke open the door of bathroom and tried to kill her by pressing her neck meanwhile, Police came and rescued her. The prosecutrix gave written account of this incident to the Police and at the place of incident itself, both the appellants were arrested. The undergarments of the prosecutrix and of both the appellants were recovered. The bed sheet and the plate with the inscription 'Bharat Sarkar' was also recovered from the car and a Case Crime No. 506 of 2013 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 376(2)(n), 376-D and 307 I.P.C. was registered against the appellants at 4:30 p.m. at Police Station - Kotwali Haridwar. The appellants and the prosecutrix were medically examined.

(3.) Investigation was carried out and after investigation, charge-sheet under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 376(2)(n), 376-D and 307 I.P.C. was submitted against the appellants in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 05.10.2013. Since the offences were exclusive triable by the court of sessions, the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. The charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 376(2)(n), 376-D and 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. were framed against the appellants on 03.12.2013, to which they denied and claimed trial.