GURMAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried in a private criminal complaint instituted by respondent No. 2 for an offence under Section 376 IPC. The trial Court convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, he was directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Out of the fine, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was ordered to be paid to prosecutrix-respondent No. 2 as compensation. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before this Court by way of an appeal.

(2.) In her complaint, respondent No. 2 stated that she was resident of village Rajpura. Her husband Nazar Singh used to work as Seeri with Gurmail Singh appellant and resided in his outer house. On 6.6.1996, her husband went to work in the Rorrewala field of the appellant. At about 6.00 AM, the appellant told the prosecutrix to bring fodder from the field for the buffaloes. Accordingly, she went to the field situated near the village. The appellant also reached there. When the prosecutrix was cutting the maize crop, the appellant forcibly caught hold of her and threw her there. He forcibly removed her Salwar and against her will, committed rape upon her. While committing rape, the appellant had placed his hand on her mouth. After committing the rape, the appellant left the spot and went away. While leaving, he threatened the prosecutrix that in case she disclosed the said fact to anybody, the consequences would be worst. The prosecutrix then went back to her house. When her husband returned in the evening, she narrated the entire occurrence to him. On the next morning, the prosecutrix and her husband went to village Rajpura, where her husband's parents resided. However, her in-laws were not found present as they had gone out in connection with some domestic work. They returned at about 7.30 PM and were duly apprised of the occurrence by the prosecutrix and her husband. The matter was also reported to the police and consequently, FIR No. 42 dated 7.6.1996 was registered at Police Station, Bhadson against the appellant. The prosecutrix was got medically examined on 8.6.1996 by the police and she was assured that the appellant would be arrested and action taken against him. However, the police connived with the appellant and obtained her thumb impressions forcibly on some blank papers. Even her husband was pressurized to give thumb impressions on some blank papers. No action was taken against the accused, for the reasons that he was a rich person and had influence over the police, whereas the prosecutrix herself belonged to poor strata of the society. Left with no other option, she filed the complaint.

(3.) After recording preliminary evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nabha vide order dated 7.9.1996 summoned the appellant for offence under Section 376 IPC. Upon appearance of the appellant, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Vide order dated 12.8.1997, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala came to the conclusion that prima facie, a case under Section 376 IPC was made out against the accused. He was charge sheeted, accordingly.