JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants -accused have assailed the impugned judgment dated 04.06.2011 rendered by Sh. S.K.Kaushik, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal whereby appellants Jai Singh and Sham Singh were convicted for committing offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (g), 342 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') whereas appellant Memwati was convicted for committing offence punishable under Sections 342 and 506 IPC vide order of sentence dated 07.06.2011. The appellants Jai Singh and Sham Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - each with default clause for committing offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for committing offence punishable under Section 342 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each with default clause for committing an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC whereas appellant Memwati was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for committing an offence punishable under Section 342 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/ - with default clause for committing offence punishable under Section 506 IPC.

(2.) BRIEF history of the case is like this; that the accusedappellants were acquitted vide judgment dated 29.03.2003 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court -II, Faridabad. Against the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, prosecutrix preferred criminal revision petition No. 1798 of 2003 in this Court.

(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for both the parties, this Court observed that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot convert the finding of acquittal into the finding of conviction, as Section 401 (3) Cr.P.C. does not authorize this Court to do so. As such, since this Court came to the conclusion that the acquittal of appellants -accused was liable to be set aside and the case was to be remanded to the trial Court for passing a fresh judgment after properly scrutinizing the statement of the prosecutrix and the other evidence produced by the prosecution, therefore, the case was remanded to the trial Court for passing fresh judgment. The aforesaid judgment is dated 10.03.2011. In pursuance with this judgment, the learned trial Court heard the Public Prosecutor for the State and learned defence counsel at length and after scrutinizing the statement of the prosecutrix and other evidence produced on record, recorded the judgment of conviction against all the three appellants and punished them vide order dated 07.06.2011. This judgment is the impugned judgment. On the statement of prosecutrix which is Ex. PA, the case was registered. As per prosecutrix, she was 14 years of age and resident of Agwanpur, Tehsil Palwal, District Faridabad. On 22.08.2001, she was sleeping in the house of her Tau (father's elder brother) namely Om Parkash. At about 11:00 p.m. when she came out of her house for the purpose of passing urine, accused Jai Singh and Sham Singh whose house was opposite to the house of her Tau, came there. They gagged her mouth and pulled her inside their house. Jai Singh accused tied her hands on the cot with the help of rope, thereafter, Jai Singh and Sham Singh both the accused committed rape upon her turn by turn. Then, their mother namely Memwati (accused) came to the spot and told her not to disclose this fact to anyone in her house as whatsoever happened had already happened and otherwise they would kill both her brothers.