(1.) Present appeal has been filed by the appellants, namely, Suraj and Narinder Kumar, challenging their conviction and sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide the judgment of conviction dated 28.9.2001 and the order of sentence, dated 29.9.2001, whereby the following sentences were passed:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1246_LAWS(P&H)8_2013_1.html</FRM>
(2.) The substantive sentences of appellant No. 1, Suraj, were ordered to run concurrently.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that PW5- prosecutrix (name concealed as per the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court) was daughter of Mukhtiar Singh (PW-6). The prosecutrix along with her family members, was residing at Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, and appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, are real brothers. They were running an electric goods shop, which was situate in front of the house of the prosecutrix. Appellant No. 1 was frequent visitor to the house of the prosecutrix for repair of electric items. On 16.9.2000, at about 7.30 a.m., the prosecutrix, who was a student of 9th class, left her house for going to her school. Since she missed the school van, she started walking down on foot. When she reached underneath the railway flyover at Kurukshetra, appellant No. 1, Suraj, came there while riding a scooter and asked the prosecutrix as to why she was proceeding on feet and the prosecutrix replied that she had missed the school van, therefore, she was going to school on feet. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, asked the prosecutrix to sit on the pillion of his scooter on the pretext that he was going towards the direction of her school and would drop her there. Instead of taking her to the school, appellant No. 1, Suraj, took her to his vacant house in Gandhi Nagar, Kurukshetra. He asked her to wait there for two minutes as he had some work at that place and thereafter asked her to come inside that house as he had still to stay there for 2-4 minutes. The prosecutrix went inside the said house and was made to sit on a bed in a room. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, offered a cold drink to her and on consumption of the same, she became drowsy. In the meanwhile, appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, elder brother of appellant No. 1, Suraj, also arrived there and the prosecutrix requested Narinder Kumar to drop her at her school as she was getting late, but appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, did not respond and went out of the room. Thereafter, the prosecutrix fell down on the bed. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, forcibly put off her salwar and committed rape on her and when she cried, he gagged her mouth. Thereafter, appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, again came inside the room and the prosecutrix complained to him that Suraj had committed rape on her. Appellant No. 2, Narinder Kumar, told that whatever was destined had happened and since appellant No. 1, Suraj, was still unmarried, he (Narinder Kumar) would arrange for their marriage. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, made the prosecutrix to drink yet another bottle of cold drink and on consumption of the same, she became unconscious. After 5-6 hours, she regained consciousness and on inquiry, appellant No. 1, Suraj, told her that they were at Haridwar and in case she narrated the incident to anyone, then he (Suraj) would kill her younger brother. On the next day, Suraj took her to a temple at Haridwar and when she tried to slip away, he threatened to kill her. Appellant No. 1 even applied 'Sindoor ' in her 'Maang'. On the next day, appellant No. 1 took the prosecutrix to yet another place known as Neelkanth and tried to kill her by electrocution, but he failed in his attempt. Thereafter, she was taken to Tulsi Ghat at Haridwar and when she started weeping then appellant No. 1 administered some poisonous substance to her by mixing the same in Jalzeera. On the next day, appellant No. 1, Suraj, brought her to Kurukshetra and dropped her at the railway station. There, the prosecutrix was spotted by her father, Mukhtiar Singh (PW-6). The police was there with her father. Appellant No. 1, Suraj, was arrested by the police.