(1.) JAGJIVAN Ram (17) and Sukhvinder Singh alias Makhan (21) were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, for offences under Sections 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted by judgment dated August 18, 1988. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.
(2.) SURJIT Kaur-PW-3, Prosecutrix in this case, who was aged a little more than 15 on the material date and was a student of 9th Class in the Government High School, was living with her father Mohinder Singh-PW4 at village Kotla Naud Singh in Police Station, Hariana, district Hoshiarpur, Punjab. On February 21, 1988, at about 5 p.m. she left her house in order to go to the house of her uncle Sant Ram. As she failed to return, her father Mohinder Singh proceeded towards the house of his cousin Sant Ram and when on the way be passed near the house of Smt. Mindo wife of Harblas, he heard the weeping of someone. He went inside the house and called aloud as to who was there. Door of the room was open, Jagjivan Ram son of Harblas and Sukhvinder Singh alias Makhan, accused, ran away by scaling over the wall of the house. Mohinder Singh found his daughter Surjit Kaur in the room and she was weeping and she told her father that she had been raped by both Jagjivan Ram as well as Sukhvinder Singh alias Makhan. Mohinder Singh brought his daughter to his house. He then went to village Bhatrana and after taking his father-in-law Amar Singh with him proceeded to the Police Station. He met Assistant Sub-Inspector Kulbir Singh at village Dadiana Kalan where his statement (Exhibit P.D.) was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Kulbir Singh at 6 p.m. on February 22, 1988. The statement was forwarded to Police Station, Hariana, where formal first information report was entered at 6.25/6.55 P.M. Copy of the Special Report was delivered to the Illaqa Magistrate at Hoshiarpur, 16/17 kilometres from the Police Station, at 7 a.m. on the next day, that is February 23, 1988. Assistant Sub Inspector Kulbir Singh PW-8 went to the spot, prepared rough site plan. Mother of the prosecutrix produced salwar which the prosecutrix was wearing at the material time and it was made into a sealed parcel and taken into possession. It was produced as Exhibit P-1. The Assistant Sub Inspector recorded statements of Surjit Kaur, her mother Gian Kaur and Amar Singh. On the next day, he got the prosecutrix medicolegally examined from Civil Hospital Hoshiarpur. Dr. Kuldip Kaur PW-2 examined the prosecutrix on February 23, 1988 at 12 noon and in the medico-legal report she noted that the prosecutrix was moderately built and nourished. Axillary and public hair had developed. The breasts were moderlaty developed. According to the prosecutrix, the last menstrual period had occurred on February 1, 1988. On P/V examination, the lady doctor found that the vagina admitted one finger. It was tender, hymen was torn and inflamed. Cervix was healthy. She prepared one swab and two slides and sent the same to the Chemical Examiner. She also advised X-ray to determine the age the prosecutrix. Vide report (Exhibit P.J.) the Chemical Examiner found semen present on slides. No spermatozoa was found on the swab. The accused were arrested on February 26, 1988 and they were got medically examined from Dr. Mohan Dev Saini PW-1. Dr. Mohan Dev Saini PW-1 found that both the accused bad normally developed penis, testes and scrotum and there was nothing to suggest that they were incapable of performing sexual intercourse. The police also took into possession birth entry (Exhibit P.E.) relating to the prosecutrix on April 4, 1988, giving the date of birth of the prosecutrix as November 9, 1972. On completion of investigation, the police presented a charge-sheet against the accused for the offences already stated.
(3.) THE plea of Jagjivan Ram accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was that the prosecutrix Surjit Kaur was his next door neighbour. She was studying in the same school in which he was studying and she was friendly with him as well as one Satnam Singh alias Satta. He and the prosecutrix wanted to marry each other but the father of the prosecutrix was opposed to the marriage and it is on this account that he had been falsely implicated in this case. The plea of Sukhvinder Singh alias Makhan in his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, was that he originally belonged to village Katha Adhkare. Jagir Singh, Lambardar of village Kotla Naud Singh was his uncle being husband of his father's sister. He further stated that the Sarpanch of village Kotla Naud Singh was inimical towards Jagir Singh aforesaid and at the instance of said Sarpanch the accused had been falsely implicated in this case. The accused produced no evidence in defence.