AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Ajit Singh has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed rape on his daughter, Kulwnder Kaur (P.W.-7), who was 14 years of age at the time of the incident, i.e. on September 2, 1996. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the Code.

(2.) The allegations are that at about 6.00 P.M. on September 2, 1996, Kulwinder Kaur had returned home from her school and the accused had taken her to the fields for cutting fodder He had then taken off her clothes and committed rape on her. This information was conveyed by Kulwinder Kaur to her mother, Surjit Kaur (P.W.-8), on which the two had gone to Police Station, Tanda and lodged the report at about 8.50 P.M., the same day. The accused was thereafter arrested and was charged for offences punishable under Sections 376,506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and as he pleaded not guilty, was brought to trial.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined inter-alia, P.W.-l Dr. Paramjit Kaur. who had medico-legally examined Kulwinder Kaur and deposed that she was about 13 years of age at the time of the incident and that her hymen was missing and that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse and that she was used to sexual intercourse as well; P.W.-2 Harpal Singh, Judicial Magistrate, who proved the statement (Exh.PE) made by Kulwinder Kaur under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; P.W.-4 Dr. Surinder Ganger, who had radiologically examined Kulwinder Kaur and opined that she was 16-1/2 years of age; P.W.-5 Dr. Kewal Singh, who had, on medical examination of Ajit Singh accused, opined that there was nothing to suggest that he was not capable of performing sexual intercourse; P.W.-7 Kulwinder Kaur, the prosecutrix herself, who reiterated the facts given in the F.I.R. and denied that she had falsely implicated her father as he had objected to her relationship with one Bittu; P.W.-8 Surjit Kaur, the mother of the prosecutrix, who supported the prosecution story; and P.W.-11 A.S.I. Ajay Pal Singh, the Investigating Officer.