KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been directed against the verdict of conviction, and, the order of sentence dtd. 16/7/2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Exclusive Court, Amritsar, in case FIR No.69 dtd. 18/4/2017, registered under Ss. 365, 363, 366-A, 376, 328, 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short), and, Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for short), at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar, whereby the appellant Nos.1 and 3 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 365, 366, 366-A and 376-D of IPC, while, the appellant No.2 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 365, 366, 366-A, and, Sec. 17 of POCSO Act. The appellants have been awarded sentence as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_151_LAWS(P&H)3_2023_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The prosecution story unveils with the recording of the statement (Ex.PW1/A) of the complainant (mother of prosecutrix) (identity of the complainant and the prosecutrix is withheld in terms of explanation attached to Sec. 33(7) of the POCSO Act), wherein, she stated that she is doing a private job at Focal Point, Amritsar, and, her duty hours are from 09:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. She is the mother of three children, i.e. two daughters and one son, out of whom, the prosecutrix is her youngest daughter, who was born in 1999. At the time of the incident, the prosecutrix had appeared in matriculation examination. On 15/4/2017, she went on duty at Focal Point, Amritsar, while leaving both her daughters at house, however, when she returned home at 5 o'clock in the evening, she did not find the prosecutrix at home. When she enquired about the whereabouts of prosecutrix from her another daughter, it was informed that at about 11:00 a.m., the friends-cum-schoolmates of the prosecutrix, namely, Ravneet Kaur and Komalpreet Kaur, had come to their house and the prosecutrix accompanied both of them on the premise of going to the house of Ravneet Kaur. Thereupon, the complainant went to the houses of both these girls to enquire about the prosecutrix and both these girls were found present at their respective houses, however, nothing could be elucidated about the whereabouts of the prosecutrix. Consequently, the complainant along with her other family members made efforts to search the prosecutrix at various places, but, all in vain. Having been unsuccessful in tracing the prosecutrix, the complainant alleged that the prosecutrix has been kidnapped by some unknown person with intention to detain her in illegal custody. Upon such statement being made by the complainant, originally the present FIR was registered against an unknown person, but, only under Sec. 365 of IPC.

(3.) After registration of FIR, the criminal investigation agency was set into motion and the Investigation Officer concerned started searching the prosecutrix. The birth certificate of the prosecutrix, as produced by the complainant, was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PW1/D). The prosecutrix was recovered on 25/4/2017, and, as per her volition, she was handed over to her legal heirs vide memo (Ex.PW1/B). Thereafter, statement (Ex.PW2/A) of the prosecutrix, under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein, she alleged commission of rape upon her by two persons, besides, other allegations against certain other persons. Thereupon, the prosecutrix was medico-legally examined on 26/4/2017, where she disclosed to the doctor that she was administered injection and she does not know what happened thereafter. Subsequently, on 28/4/2017, the complainant suffered a supplementary statement (Ex.PW1/C), wherethrough, Kuldeep Singh, Jinder Kaur @ Veer Kaur, Manjinder Singh @ Peeta, Sukhwinder Kaur, Lakhwinder Singh, and, Hardip Singh were nominated as accused in the FIR. However, during investigation, Lakhwinder Singh and Hardip Singh were declared innocent, whereas, Sukhwinder Kaur was declared as Proclaimed Offender. Consequently, the present appellants came to be arrested on different dates, and, during interrogation, the appellant No.2 suffered a disclosure statement (Ex.PW7/M) qua preparation of an affidavit, on 22/4/2017, regarding solemnization of marriage of the prosecutrix with her nephew, and, she offered to get the said affidavit recovered from the almirah of her room. In pursuance of such disclosure statement, she led the police party and got recovered the affidavit, which was seized vide recovery memo (Ex.PW7/P). Upon further investigation, offences under Ss. 363, 366-A and 120-B of IPC was added in the case. It is also apt to record here that the Senior Superintendent of Police concerned, vide its order dtd. 3/5/2017, had constituted an S.I.T. to conduct investigation in the case, whereupon, considering all the material available on record, the S.I.T. ordered inclusion of offences under Sec. 376 of IPC, and, Sec. 5 of POCSO Act. The statement (Ex.PW2/B) of the prosecutrix, under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., was also recorded before the Illaqa Magistrate. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was once again medico-legally examined, on 6/6/2017, by a Board of Doctors, constituted by the S.M.O., Civil Hospital, Amritsar. After completion of investigation, the Final Report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against the present appellants, besides, one Sukhwinder Kaur (Proclaimed Offender), before the concerned Illaqa Magistrate. Finding the case exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Illaqa Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions vide committal order dtd. 19/7/2018.