SUKHMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS have filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 05.04.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, vide which they were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 366/376/379/506 IPC. Both the appellants have been awarded sentence as under;- Appellant ­ Sukhminder Singh:

(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that on 30.11.2000, complainant-prosecutrix moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon, stating that she is resident of Village Sohian. On 11.11.2000, she was present at the Sem Nala (water logging drainage) to take Tempo to go Gurudwara Tahli Sahib, Raikot. She was having a pot in her hand in which she had put 'Parshad' to present at Gurudwara Tahli Sahib. At about 10 A.M. the accused came in a Maruti Car which was being driven by Sukha @ Sukhminder Singh and Gurchet Singh was sitting along side him. The accused-appellants stopped the car near her and asked her where she had to go. She was just to reply when Gurchet Singh ­ accused took out a handkerchief from his pocket and put it on her mouth and she became unconscious. The accused put the prosecutrix on the back seat of the car. When the prosecutrix regained consciousness, she found herself lying on the cot in the room of the motor at Village Sidhwan Kalan. Her clothes were torn at that time. She agitated but the accused forcibly tore her cloths. Both the accused were having knives in their hands and they threatened her with dire consequences. Both the accused committed rape with her against her consent. The appellants-accused snatched the ear rings of the prosecutrix and also took Rs.60/- from her which she was having for bus fare and also ate the Parshad. The prosecutrix was kept at the motor for whole of the day and her modesty was outraged. Thereafter, at night the prosecutrix was taken at the motor of Gurchet Singh, where also the accused committed rape with her and kept her there for whole night. On the next day, they dropped her at the same place from where she was abducted. She did not tell this incident to anyone as the accused threatened her with dire consequences. After some days, she told about this incident to her husband Kewal Singh, who along with his other relations reported the matter to Sukhdev Singh, Sarpanch of the village. The Sarpanch called the accused in the Panchayat many a times, but they did not bother to come. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR and sent the prosecutrix to the hospital for medical examination. Dr. Parveen Bala Aggarwal had medico legally examined the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and they were medico legally examined by Dr. H.S. Sidhu. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants. The appellants denied the charges, refuted the prosecution story and pleaded not guilty and faced trial. The Trial Court after concluding the proceedings, vide judgment and order dated 05.04.2003 convicted both the appellants for committing gang rape and sentenced as aforementioned.

(3.) AFTER recording of the prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellants were recorded. The appellants denied the entire incriminating evidence and pleaded their false implication. The appellants in their defence examined DW1 Jagjit Singh, who deposed that prosecutrix is a lady of bad character and for this reason, her husband and her in laws had been picking up quarrels with her. He further deposed that the prosecutrix is in the habit of leaving her matrimonial house and once she also tried to commit suicide. However, the matter was compromised. It is also deposed by DW1 that there was a dispute between the accused and Kewal Singh, husband of the prosecutrix regarding the loan of Rs.24,000-25,000/-. DW2 ­ Gurdev Singh deposed that he is Ex- Sarpanch of Village Sohian and the place from where the prosecution was alleged to have been abducted, is a thorough-fare. He further deposed that many persons including ladies remain present at the spot. There is a bus stand, medicine shop, milk dairy and liquor vend near the place of alleged occurrence. DW3 ­ Baldev Singh and DW4 ­ Kaka Singh have also deposed on similar lines. The learned Trial Court after appraisal of evidence on record, came to a conclusion that guilt of the appellants stood proved on record and accordingly, they have been convicted and sentenced as referred to herein above. Hence, this appeal.