RAGHBIR @ BHEERA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the prosecution version and its evidence in entirety, appellant-convict Raghbir @ Bheera son of Puran(for brevity "the appellant) has preferred the instant appeal, to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.03.2002 and order of sentence dated 16.03.2002, by virtue of which, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment(for short "RI") for a period of five years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one month, for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 363 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one month, under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) The conspectus of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record is that, on 04.09.1999 at about 1.30 PM, the prosecutrix(PW7)(name intentionally withheld) a female child of about 10 years, daughter of, and her brother-Sukhwinder Singh, aged about 8 years, son of, complainant-Surjit Kaur(PW1) wife of Gurcharan Singh (for brevity "the complainant) had gone to the fields. As soon as, they reached near the fields, in the meantime, the appellant emerged from other fields(place of occurrence) and forcibly kidnapped and took away the prosecutrix in the paddy fields of Baldev Raj. Her brother Sukhwinder Singh(PW8) became scared and came running to his house. He apprised and narrated the entire story to his mother complainant-Surjit Kaur. Thereafter, she rushed to the fields, followed by other villagers and noticed the appellant and prosecutrix in naked condition. The appellant was attempted to commit sexual intercourse with her. It was averred that other villagers also reached at the spot and on seeing them, the appellant decamped from the place of occurrence. However, he was apprehended by the people from the nearby field. The complainant reported the matter and put the police machinery into motion in this regard.

(3.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that on 04.09.1999, the appellant has kidnapped and attempted to commit sexual intercourse on a minor girl of 10 years(prosecutrix). In the background of these allegations and in the wake of complaint(Ex.P1) of complainant-Surjit Kaur, the present criminal case was registered against the appellant, vide FIR No.234 dated 04.09.1999(Ex.P-3), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 376 read with Section 511 IPC, by the police of Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat.