JASVEER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 19/2/2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in ST No. 133/1997, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of ten years and fine of rupees five thousand only. The learned Sessions Judge further directed that in de fault of payment of fine, the appellants would undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one year.

(2.) THE brief facts of the prosecution case as emerged from the record are that the victim-Smt. Kusum W/o Chain Singh (the informant of this case) had gone to meet the natural call in the morning at about 0500 hours to 0530 hours on 06. 5. 1997 in the adjoining fields of her residence. When she reached in the fields to ease herself, the accused-appellants Harveer and Jasveer emerged there. Harveer caught hold of the victim from behind whereas Jasveer committed forci ble sexual intercourse upon her. The ap pellant Harveer had an iron rod in his hand and he threatened the victim show ing the rod that if she would make any noise, she would be killed, as such, the victim remained silent during the commis sion of the offence. After committing rape upon the victim, the appellants ran away from the place of occurrence. The victim immediately went to her house and nar rated the entire story to her mother-in- law and later on to her husband Chain Singh. Chain Singh immediately went to the house of Satveer Singh who is the brother of the appellants and complained him about the said incident. Satveer Singh in stead of saying anything to the appellants advised Chain Singh to remain quiet and also threatened him of dire consequences if he would lodge any report to the police to that effect. Immediately, thereafter Chain Singh alongwith his wife (the vic tim) went to the police station Sahaspur where a policeman in plain dress met them and asked them to first get the vic tim medically examined. Thereafter, the in formant as well as the victim went to the hospital where the doctor, in absence of the police report, refused to medically examine the victim. Consequent thereof, they went to a typist in the court premises and got a report typed. Thereafter a re port was lodged in the police station Sahaspur at about 2015 hours on the same day of the incident. After lodging the report, the victim was sent to Women's Doon Hospital on 07. 5. 1997 for medical examination and she was medically exam ined at about 1300 hours on the same day. In the medical examination, the doc tor did not find any injury on her body, neither in the external parts nor on her private part. The doctor also referred the vic tim for conducting her X-ray and thereaf ter a supplementary medical report was prepared. The doctor opined that there was no injury on the outer parts or on the private parts of the body of the victim. The victim was found habitual to sexual intercourse and her age was assessed above 18 years at the time of the incident. Thereafter, statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr. PC was recorded on 15. 4. 1997 before the magistrate. On the report of the informant, the matter was in vestigated by the police and eventually, chargesheet was submitted against the ac cused-appellants.

(3.) THE accused-appellants were exam ined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Cods. They have denied all the averments made in the evidence and they have further stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused-appellants have taken a plea that there was a dispute with regard to pay ment of some money in between the com plainant and the accused party, so they have been implicated in this case. The accused-appellants did not adduce any evi dence either documentary or oral, in sup port of their defence.