MUKESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment of conviction dated 20.11.2000 and order of sentence dated 24.11.2000, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby, they were held guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 363 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 366 IPC.

(2.) THEY were further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten months under Section 376 IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 25.10.1999, Manphool got recorded his statement to ASI Sada Ram, in which he stated that his younger daughter (prosecutrix) aged about 13 years (to conceal her name she is named as "S "). The other prosecutrix (to conceal her name she is named as "K "), sister -in -law of his elder daughter was married and she used to visit his house frequently. On 19.10.1999 at about 8.30 P.M., his younger daughter prosecutrix "S " and prosecutrix "K " had gone to watch Ram Lila at Subhash Dramatic Club, Hansi but they did not return. He and his son -in -law searched for "S " and "K " in the relations but could not trace them. On 26.10.1999, "S " was recovered from the custody of Rajinder and "K " was recovered from the custody of Mukesh. The statements of both the prosecutrixes were recorded. They were got medico legally examined. Their statements were also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. They were also examined for determining their age. In her statement, prosecutrix "S " stated that the accused -appellants used to come to their house for taking milk. On 19.10.1999, she and prosecutrix "K " were going to watch Ram Lila at Subhash Nagar, Hansi, where the accused -appellants came in their way. They also accompanied them and told them that they would take them to good Ram Lila show. They took them in a jeep near Campa Cola Factory, Hisar road where Bablu took her in a separate room and Mukesh took "K " in another room and committed rape. Then on the same night, they were taken to Hisar railway station in a jeep, from where they took them to village Sangarwas where they were kept for 5/6 days. During that time, Bablu raped "S " and "K " was raped by Mukesh. Thereafter, accused -appellants planned to take them to Punjab and on 25.10.1999 brought them to railway station, Hansi but in the morning, they all were apprehended by the police. After necessary investigation, challan was presented against the accused -appellants.

(3.) IN support of its case, prosecution examined PW -1 Dr.R.P.Singal, Radiologist, who mainly deposed that on 05.11.1999, he examined "S " and X -rays of wrist and elbow were taken and age of "S " was found between 14 years and 17 years. He also proved his report Ex.PA. Similarly, the doctor found the age of "K " between 16 years and 19 years. PW -2 Rishi Pal, Patwari, mainly deposed regarding preparing of scaled site plan. PW -3 MHC Satbir Singh and PW -4 Constable Suresh Kumar, are the formal witnesses, who tendered into evidence, their affidavits Ex.PD and Ex.PE respectively. PW -5 Ms.Ritu Tagore, SDJM, Hansi mainly deposed regarding recording of the statements of the prosecutrixes "S " and "K " under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW -6 Dr.Suman Mann deposed regarding medico legally examination of "S " and "K " and found that hymen was torn and healed and no injury was found on their person. PW -7 Dr.O.P.Charaya mainly deposed regarding medico legally examination of both the accused -appellants and found them fit for committing sexual intercourse. PW -8 Manphool, is the complainant, who deposed as per prosecution version. PW -9 Sita Ram deposed that on 19.10.1999, he was going from Hisar to Hansi. When he was present at the bus -stand, there he saw both the accused -appellants with both the prosecutrix outside the gate of the bus -stand. PW -10 prosecutrix "S " mainly deposed as per prosecution version. PW -11 prosecutrix "K " also deposed as per prosecution version. PW -12 Inspector Shri Bhagwan mainly deposed regarding preparing of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW -13 ASI Sada Ram, Investigating Officer deposed regarding investigation conducted by him in the present case.