MALOOK SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of even date i.e. 22.10.2003, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ferozepur, whereby appellants were held guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 376(2)(g)/366 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).

(2.) BRIEFLY put, facts of the case are that the prosecutrix, aged about 17 years, was married with Balwant Singh who was resident of Village Molwi Wala on 21.02.2003. On 23.02.2003, it was Sunday. She came back to her parents' house to meet her parents. On the intervening night of 25/26.02.2003, at about 4 a.m., the prosecutrix was urinating in the courtyard of her parents' house. The electric bulb in the courtyard was on. Rest of the family members were sleeping inside the room. Accused Malook Singh, Babbu Singh and juvenile Veeru [who was tried separately under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000], came in the courtyard of house of the prosecutrix. Accused Malook Singh enfolded the prosecutrix and put his hand on her mouth. All the three accused lifted the prosecutrix and took her in one of the rooms of the house of Malook Singh. They bolted the room from inside. Veeru forcibly put off the salwar of the prosecutrix and raped her against her consent. Both accused Malook Singh and Babbu Singh remained inside the room, watching the rape scene. Mangal Singh, father of the prosecutrix arrived there. He knocked the door of the room from outside. All the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence, after immediately opening the door. Mangal Singh took his daughter to his house. During scuffle, the prosecutrix also received injuries on her legs and shoulders. The Panchayat tried to patch up the matter unsuccessfully. In the evening of 26.02.2003, the prosecutrix along with her father Mangal Singh and aunt Krishna, went to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Renu Singla. During the course of rape, one gold necklace, one Tikka and one finger ring of the prosecutrix were also lost.

(3.) DURING trial, an inquiry was held in compliance of the order passed by this Court and accused Veeru was held to be a juvenile in conflict with law. Proceedings against him were referred for trial to the Board, constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and his name was struck off, from the charge -sheet framed against all the three accused, by the learned trial Court.