NANAK CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.9.1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 342 and 354 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for six months. Besides, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for six months. However, the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently with each other.

(2.) CASE FIR No. 169 dated 9.4.1991 (Ex. PF) was registered at Police Station City Palwal on the statement of the prosecutrix for the offences under Section 376/511 and 342 IPC. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that she knew the appellant, who was residing in their neighbourhood. Some days earlier, she had gone to the house of the appellant to bring water from the tap. The appellant at that time caught hold of her and took her inside his 'chhappar' (hutment). He undressed her and after undressing himself, he lay naked on her. In the meanwhile, mother of the prosecutrix called her and on this the appellant opened the door of his 'chhappar' and ran away. The mother of the prosecutrix found her weeping and the prosecutrix told her the entire story. Her father had gone out for doing his daily work and when he came back, the prosecutrix told him about the incident. Thereafter, they went to the police station and lodged the report (Ex. PF). The investigation in the case was taken up by Ravi Datt, ASI (PW-8) and on the same day, he apprehended the accused. He inspected the site of the incident and prepared rough site-plan (Ex. PG). The prosecutrix was taken to the Civil Hospital, Palwal on 9.4.1991, where lady doctor i.e. Dr. Chandrika Malik, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Palwal (PW-2) examined her. The prosecutrix was also examined on 10.4.1991 by Dr. Kusum Chaudhary, Medical Superintendent, ESI Hospital, Ballabgarh (PW-1).

(3.) THE prosecution in order to prove its case examined Dr. Kusum Chaudhary (PW-1), Dr. Chandrika Malik (PW-2), Sr. V.K. Aggarwal, Radiologist (PW-3), Dr. S.S. Singal (PW-4), Sumer Singh, Draftsman (PW-5), the prosecutrix (PW-6), Smt. Kamlesh wife of Deena Ram (PW-7) and Ravi Datt - Investigating Officer, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-8). Sub-Inspector Prem Singh and Deena Ram, father of the prosecutrix were given up by the Public Prosecutor as unnecessary on 5.9.1991 and the prosecution evidence was closed on the same day. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which he stated that he was innocent and that the father of the prosecutrix namely Deena Ram had quarrel with him and had threatened him to teach a lesson for quarrelling with him and for that reason the appellant had been falsely implicated. In defence, the appellant examined Smt. Krishna (DW-1), Brij Pal (DW-2), Bijender (DW-3) and closed his evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad after considering the evidence and material on record convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as already noticed above. The said order is assailed in this appeal.