RAM KARAN Vs. STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried for committing offences punishable under Sections 342 and 376 IPC on the allegations that at about 7.00 a.m. on 31.8.2003, he committed rape upon the prosecutrix aged seven years. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 20/22.4.2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, convicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. He was also convicted under Section 342 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by him during the trial of the case was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment as per the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 31.8.2003, complainant-Gurnam Kaur came across ASI Ram Phal, who along with fellow officials was on law and order duty in the market of village Maloya, U.T., Chandigarh and got recorded her statement to the effect that she was having two children. Her elder child was a daughter, aged about seven years while younger to her was her son who was aged about six years. On that very day, at about 7.00 a.m., she found her daughter crying in the room. The complainant inquired from her as to what had happened, to which, the daughter replied that the appellant who lived in the adjoining house had called her for watching a religious movie on the Television and after taking her inside the room, subjected her to rape. The complainant went to the house of the appellant, but he managed to escape from there. On the basis of the statement made by the complainant on the aforementioned lines, FIR No. 404 dated 31.8.2003 under Sections 376 and 342 IPC was registered against the appellant at Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh.

(3.) At the trial of the case, the prosecution examined Constable Gurvinder Singh as PW1, who deposed about the arrest of the appellant on 7.9.2003; MMHC Ram Karan as PW2, who deposed about the case property being retained by him and, thereafter, sent to CFSL; Dr. Veena Sarna as PW3, who testified that she medico-legally examined the prosecutrix on 31.8.2003; Gurcharan Singh, Master as PW4, who deposed that as per the school record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was 30.12.1995; complainant-Gurnam Kaur as PW5, who testified about the prosecutrix disclosing to her that it was the appellant who had subjected her to rape; the prosecutrix herself as PW6; Dr. Rajwinderjit Singh as PW7, who stated that he medico-legally examined the appellant on 8.9.2003 and as per his observations, there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of performing sexual intercourse; SI Ram Phal as PW8; Inspector Hardev Singh as PW10; Constable Het Ram as PW11 and Constable Yash Pal as PW13, who deposed about the various steps taken by them during the investigation of the case and Dr. Sanjiv, Senior Scientific Officer & Head of Department, Department of Biology, CFSL, Chandigarh as PW12, who proved his report Ex.PN.