SANTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Santa Singh alongwith Kulwant Singh, Ranjit Singh and Jasbir Singh was tried for having committed an offence under section 377, Indian Penal Code, on the night of 5th November, 1979, in village Mahianawala. According to the prosecution allegations, they had arnal intercourse with Baltej Singh (P.W.1) caged about 12 years. For the purposes of this judgment it is not necessary to narrate the whole prosecution story in detail. Suffice it to say that the learned trial Court found all the above named 4 persons guilty under section. 377, Indian Penal Code, and convicted them accordingly and sentenced each of them to 8 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Rigorous imprisonment for 3 months in default of payment of fine was also awarded to the defaulter.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, the convicted persons filed appeal which was heard by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. He partly accepted the appeal ami set aside the conviction and sentence of Kulwant Singh, Ranjit Singh and Jasbir Singh and acquitted them of the charge framed against them. The conviction of the present petitioner was, however, maintained but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to one year. The sentence of fine was maintained. Petitioner has come to this Court in revision.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned Lower Appellate Court had acquitted Kulwant Singh, Ranjit Singh and Jasbir Singh, on the ground that during their cross- examination Baltej Singh, victim of the outrage and Joginder Silngh the alleged eye-witness did not support the prosecution story qua the identity of offenders. In cross-examination Joginder Singh has stated that he had not seen the occurrence and when he had reached the spot Baltej Singh was present there in addition to 15 or 16 other boys and on the basis of the statements of those other boys, he had named the present petitioner and his co-accused as the offenders during his examination-in-chief. Baltej Singh also stated in cross-examination that it was pitch dark at the time of occurrence and he could not identify the offenders. The learned counsel argued that in the face of the above evidence even Santa Singh petitioner could not have been convicted for the offence for which he was charged.