HARI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-Hari Chand has filed the present appeal for challenging the judgment and order dated 14.2.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc) Faridabad, whereby, he stands convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He further stands convicted under Section 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. He also stands convicted under Section 366-A IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The period for which the appellant had remained in custody during the course of investigation/trial was ordered to be set off against the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that the prosecutrix, who was studying at Sonepat, had come to stay with her mother at Faridabad during vacations from the school. On 20.10.2000, mother of the prosecutrix was busy attending to her duties, while her brother was away to the market. At about 12.00 noon, when the prosecutrix was all alone in the house, accused-Nain Sukh (now Proclaimed Offender), along with the appellant, who was his friend, came to the house of the prosecutrix and on finding her alone, Nain Sukh called her in a room of her house. Accused-Hari Chand bolted the door of the room from outside. Accused Nain Sukh raped her against her wishes. She tried her best to get herself released from the clutches of Nain Sukh, but it was all in vain. After committing the offence, Nain Sukh and appellant-Hari Chand threatened her that in case she reported the matter to anyone, her family would be eliminated. At the same time, Nain Sukh promised to marry her. Out of fear, the prosecutrix did not disclose anything about the incident to anyone in the family.

(3.) Further case of the prosecution is that on 29.10.2000, at about at about 4:00 a.m., when the prosecutrix had gone to bathroom, Nain Sukh picked her up forcibly. At that time, appellant-Hari Chand was present with him. Both of them took the prosecutrix on their motor cycle to the jungles in U.P. Nain Sukh, with the assistance of the appellant raped her several times. Nain Sukh then brought her to the Court premises in Chhata (U.P.) for Court marriage. However, the prosecutrix managed to escape and reached Railway Station Chhata. At the railway station, she was caught hold of by the appellant and again taken by him and Nain Sukh to the jungles of U.P. On 6.11.2000, when the two accused were taking her on the motor cycle to Rewari, they were apprehended by the police at the Railway Station of Karman Phatak at about 3.00/4.00 p.m. She narrated the entire incident to the police and also her mother. She was, thereafter, got medically examined in Civil Hospital, Hodal. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also got recorded by the Magistrate. It may be worthwhile to mention here that while the prosecutrix was in the custody of the two accused, the mother of the prosecutrix submitted application to the police, and on its basis, FIR No. 413 dated 4.11.2000 under Sections 363/366/120-B IPC was registered at Police Station, Hodal. It was alleged therein that two accused, who had earlier been living in the house of the mother of the prosecutrix had enticed the prosecutrix with the promise to marry her. Subsequently, after the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded, offence under Section 376 IPC was also added to the FIR.