RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed by the Appellant against the judgment and order dated 29th November, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he was held guilty of committing offences under Sections 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default whereof to undergo further RI for a period of two months, under Section 363 IPC, to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default whereof, to undergo further RI for a period of four months, under Section 366 IPC and to undergo RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default whereof to undergo further RI for four months under Section 376 IPC, though all the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) AS per the prosecution case on 9th March, 1988 at about 7.30 PM, the prosecutrix (name withheld) was going to the house of her neighbour to watch Television programme when the Appellant met her and asked her to bring money from her house and told that he would marry her; the prosecutrix brought Rs. 10,000/ - from her house and the Appellant took her firstly to the Bus Stand, Ludhiana, from where they boarded a bus and went to New Delhi and stayed there in a hotel; the accused forcibly committed sexual intercourse against her wishes under threat of her life; after staying in the hotel for one day, the Appellant took a room on rent in Rawal Nagar, New Delhi, @ Rs. 100/ - per month where the Appellant and prosecutrix stayed for about one month, during which period he used to commit rape upon her almost daily without her consent. After one month, the prosecutrix asked the Appellant to go back to Ludhiana. However, neither did he concede to her request nor married her, though both of them came back to Ludhiana, on 15th April, 1988 and were apprehended by the police. The prosecutrix was got medico -legally examined on 15th April, 1988 at 4.45 PM from Dr. Amita Singla, who found her habitual to sexual intercourse and the last intercourse was committed two days prior to her medical examination. Her hymen was also found ruptured. The Appellant was also got medico -legally examined and the doctor found that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of committing sexual intercourse.

(3.) IN support of the above mentioned charges, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses, which included Dr. G.S. Grewal (PW -3), the prosecutrix (PW -5), her mother Vidya Wanti (PW -6), Dr. Amita Singla (PW -8) and the investigating officer SI Shamsher Singh (PW -7).