STATE OF HARYANA Vs. JEET PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHARAN Singh (PW-8) father of Miss Arpita (PW-7) aged about 14/1-2 years, the prosecutrix, and his wife were teachers by profession. On May 18, 1992 Charan Singh and his wife had gone to attend to their duty leaving Arpita at home. When Charan Singh returned home, he was told that Arpita was missing. On inquiry, he received information that accused Pankaj and Rajesh Kumar had taken her away. He then went to Police Station City, Palwal and recorded his statement at 7.10 P.M. on May 20, 1992 and on its basis, an F.I.R. was registered ten minutes later for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Pankaj and Rajesh Kumar were arrested on May 22, 1992 at Jaipur in proceedings under Section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and were detained. Arpita was also recovered from them and sent to the Nari Niketan. The accused were ultimately transferred to Palwal under the orders of the Magistrate. During the course of the investigation, it transpired that accused Jeetpal and Satwati had also been involved in the incident alongwith two others, namely, Rajni and Sheela. After their arrest, accused Rajni and Sheela were challaned separately and put to trial before the Juvenile Court whereas the other accused, i.e. Jeetpal, Satwati, Pankaj and Rajesh Kumar were charged for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(G) of the Indian Penal Code, and as they pleaded not guilty, were brought to trial.

(2.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined inter alia, PW-1 Dr. Krishan Kumar, who had medico-legally examined Pankaj and opined that he was capable of performing the sexual intercourse; PW-2 Dr. (Mrs.) Chandrika Malik, who had medico-legally examined Arpita on May 23, 1992 and had found marks of violence on her person and opined that the possibility of recent sexual activity could not be ruled out; PW-6 Ram Parshad, a Teacher of the Government Senior Secondary Girls School, Palwal, who brought the admission record to show that the date of birth of Arpita in the admission register was October 29, 1997; PW-7 Arpita, the prosecutrix herself; PW-8 Charan Singh, the father of the prosecutrix and the first informant; and PWs. 9 and 10 ASI Amar Nath and SI Rameshwar Dayal, the two Investigating Officers.

(3.) THE trial Court found that it was the common case of the parties that Arpita had left the house on her own accord in the company of Pankaj and Rajesh Kumar and had lived with them till their arrest by the Jaipur police on May 22, 1992. The Court also opined that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest that Satwati and Jeet Pal had any role to play in the incident, the moreso, as their names did not even figure in the F.I.R. and the prosecutrix herself was not clear as to their identity. The Court accordingly acquitted these two appellants. The trial Court, however, found that the evidence of Charan Singh when read alongwith the other evidence and the fact that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident, established the case against the other two accused beyond doubt. Reliance was also placed on the evidence of Dr. Chandrika Malik, who had stated that the possibility of recent sexual activity on her part could not be ruled out. The trial Court accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as under :- Accused Rajesh Kumar U/s 376(g) IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused Pankaj U/s 366 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Accused Pankaj U/s 376 (g) IPC. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.