BHAGAT SINGH Vs. STATE (U T CHANDIGARH)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHAGAT Singh son of Bhupinder Singh appellant stands charged under sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code for having kidnaped and raped Sonia daughter of Sucha Singh, aged 14 years.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that on 10th may, 1991, Sub - Inspector Dhanraj along with other police officials was on patrol duty and when the police party reached on the road in between sectors 41 and 42 Chandigarh, Manjit Kaur P.W. 7 the mother of Sonia accompanied by Gurpal Singh alias Pala P.W. 8 and Sunil P.W. 9 met the police party and produced the accused who was then identified as Raja Ram son of Ram Prasad before it. She also gave a statement Ex.PF that she was residing with her children in village Badhri and was a tenant in the house of one Narati and she and her husband Sucha Singh who was carpenter, had three daughters and two sons and Sonia, aged 4 years, was one of them. She also stated on the day in question at about 2.45 P.M. after taking her meal she was cleaning the utensils when Sonia along with two other children Bagga and Ricky came back and told her that Sonia had been kidnapped by a well build Bhatia and had been taken away on a cycle, Manjit Kaur accompanied by the aforesaid children went searching for Sonia but she was not traceable and ultimately Manjit Kaur came back to her house as her husband way away to work. She called Gurpal Singh alias Pala P.W. 8 and Sunil P.W. 9 respectively and sought their help. When she alongwith the aforesaid witness were going on the old roads towards village Badheri, they found a cycle lying nearby outside a building which was under construction and heard the cry of child which she recognised as that of her daughter Sonia and when she along with the other witnesses went towards the bushes they found that behind the bushes, a Bhaia of black colour was lying naked on her naked daughter. On seeing the witnessess, the accused attempted to run away but was apprehended by Gurpal Singh alias Pala P.W. 8 and Sunil P.W. 9. The said Bhaia disclosed his name as Rajaram alias Raja son of Ram Parsad. The statement Ex.PF was read over and explained to the complainant (Manjit Kaur P.W. 7) and who signed the same in token of its correctness. Sub Inspector Dhan Raj P.W. 12 accordingly made an endorsement EX.PF/l on the statement and forwarded the same for the registration of the formal first information report PF/2 which was recorded at the police station Sector 39, Chandigarh, by Inspector P.K. Dawan. The cycle seized at the spot was also taken into possession vide recovery memo PG. The police officer also sent Sonia for her medical examination and she was duly examined by Dr. Gurdeep Kaur P.W. 10 on 11th May, 1990 at 00.10 A.M. On examination, P.W. 10 Dr. Gurdeep Kaur observed that her hymen had been ruptured and there was oozing of blood from the bruises and tom hymen and that there were bruises around the anus which were also thrashed and slight oozing of blood was also present. She also opined that hymen of Sonia could have been tom due to penetration. The appellant was also sent for his medical examination and was duly examined by Dr. Ajay Verma, P.W. 2 at 00.30 A.M. on 11th May, 1991 and it is found that he was fit enough to have sexual intercourse. The frock of Sonia and the underwear of the appellant which had also been seized by the police were sent for examination and it was found on analysis that spermatoza was present on these two items. On the completion of the investigation the challan was duly presented in the court of the Ilaqua Magistrate Chandigarh and the case was committed for trial. The trial Court relied upon the evidence of Dr. P.D. Jain P.W. 1 who had examined Sonia and found that she was between 6 to 9 years of age P.W. 2 Dr. Ajay Vermma who had examined Raja Ram appellant; the three eye -witnesses PWs 7,8 and Manjit Kaur, Gurpal Singh alias Pala and Sunil respectively, P.W. 11 H.C. Sarwan Singh who deposed that the appellant was not in fact Raja Loam but was Bhagat Singh, resident of Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh, and the Investigating Officer S.I. Dhan Raj F.W. 12 Sonia was however found by the Judge as not competent as, a witness and was accordingly discharged. When examined under section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant pleaded false implication and also appeared am a defence witness. He stated that he had been picked up by the police in a case of theft of a cycle and was thereafter involved falsely in the case and the real culprit who was already with the police was let off. The trial court relying upon the evidence mentioned above, came to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution stood proved beyond doubt and sentenced the appellant to three years R.I. and a find of Rs. 1,000/ - in default of payment of fine to further R.I. for six months under section 363 LIC'. and to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - in default of payment thereof further undergo R.I. for two years under section 376 LP.C. Fence this appeal at his instance.

(3.) WE have gone through the evidence on record and also perused the judgement of the trial court. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was apprehended at the spot and produced before the police. It has also come in evidence that both, he and Sonia were examined by their respective doctors at about mid -night. It is therefore apparent that the case of false implication can straightway be ruled out. We have also found that the evidence of the three eye -witnesses, that is. P.Ws 7,8 and 9 Manjit Kaur, Gurpal Singh alias Pala and Sunil inspires confidence and no motive whatsoever has been spelt out which could go to indicate the involvement of the appellant in a false case. The mere fact that Dr. Ajay Verma P. W . 2 stated that there was no blood stain on the underwear or other cloths of the appellant and no mark of injury on his private parts would not have the effect of casting a doubt on the evidence of the eye -witness. The fact of rape has been conclusively proved by the evidence of Dr. Gurdeep Kaur P.W. 10 who had deposed that the hymen of Sonia was torn due to penetration. Some doubt, was attempted to be cast on the identity of the appellant inasmuch as at the time of the arrest he had given his name as Raja Ram but at the time of trial it transpired that he was Bhagat Singh son of Bhupindet Singh, resident of Manimajra U.T. Chandigarh. The true identity of the appellant apparently was revealed when Head Constable Sarwan Singh P.W. 11 happened to visit the police station and had identified him as Bhagat Singh a resident of Manimajra, as this police officer of his involvement in a cycle theft case. Sub -Inspector Dhan Raj PW. 12 had even gone into this aspect of the matter and his identity and antecedents were got verified from his brothers Bishan Singh and Santokh Singh. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant at the time of his arrest made a wrong statement to conceal his identity and was, in fact, Bhagat Singh son of Bhupinder Singh and not Raja Ram, as.alleged by him. It is also relevant that Dr. Ajay Verma, P.W. 2 who had examined the appellant on the night intervening 10/11th May, 1991 identified him as the person who had been sent for the medico legal examination. The fact that the appellant was apprehended at the spot together with the evidence mentioned above clearly indicates that whatever may be the name of the appellant, he was in fact the one who had committed the crime.