KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN brief, facts of the prosecution case are like this; that the prosecutrix of this case is a 80 years old lady, resident of village Ghot Pokhar. She has lost her husband about 20 years back. She has two married daughters. On June 18, 2008, her elder daughter Kirpal Kaur (PW) and son -in -law Boor Singh (PW) came to see her. They stayed with her that night. As usual, prosecutrix slept in a room while her daughter and son -in -law went to sleep in another room. Around mid night when the prosecutrix was asleep in her room, door of the room was lying open. A zero watt bulb was on. Kuldeep Singh @ Teeta appellant entered the room, gagged mouth of the prosecutrix and subjected her to rape. He also inflicted bruises on the face of the prosecutrix while attempting to prevent her from making a noise and on her abdomen while removing her salwar. However, prosecutrix raised a noise which attracted her aforesaid daughter and son -in -law to her room. On seeing them, the accused had run away. The matter was brought to the notice of the respectables of the village in the morning. As prosecutrix was not finding herself well, therefore, she was taken to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. On receipt of medical legal report of the prosecutrix, on 19.6.2008, SI Parmod Kumar, officer in charge of the police station, had gone to the hospital and recorded her statement. Ruka was sent to the police station for registration of the case, whereupon, formal FIR was recorded by ASI Desh Kumar. Rough site plan of the spot was prepared. Accused was arrested and after completion of necessary investigation, the challan was put in the Court against the accused/appellant.

(2.) THE accused -appellant was charge sheeted for committing offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 323 IPC. After taking evidence, recording the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing both the counsel for the parties and appraisal of the entire evidence and material coming on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused -appellant for committing offence punishable under Section 323, 452 and 376 IPC and sentenced as under : -

(3.) DURING the course of hearing of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has already spent more than six years in custody, the case is about seven years old, he, in fact, does not contest the findings of the learned trial Court recorded on merits, and prayed that lenient view may be taken against the appellant while awarding sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn my attention towards the statement of prosecutrix, who appeared as PW 1 (name withheld). He pointed out that prosecutrix did not depose a word about commission of rape upon her. Prosecutrix simply stated that she was present in the courtyard of her house.