BALKHTAUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana dated 14-10-2000 by which accused-appellant was convicted under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced as under :-

(2.) Brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal, are recapitulated below :- The prosecutrix is a married woman and w/o Balbir Singh, was having five months old male child in her lap. At the time of occurrence i.e. on 8-5-1999, her husband who was employed as a driver on a car at Ahmadgarh Mandi had gone to his duty. His duty periods were 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. Her father-in-law and mother-in-law are not alive whereas brothers of her husband are living separately. On 8-5-1999 at about 3.00 p.m. when the prosecutrix was making her son sleep on a bed in her room, accused by scaling over 7 feet high wall entered the room; caught hold of her by her neck; threw her forcibly on the bed; removed her clothes without her consent and committed sexual intercourse with her. After satisfying his lust, he threatened the prosecutrix that in case she divulged the incident to any body, then she along with her son will be killed. Thereafter he left the place. After the accused loosened his grip over the neck, she raised hue and cry which attracted PW2 Nirmal Singh, who was removing the manure nearby. On seeing him, the accused fled away. Prosecutrix kept waiting for her husband who returned from duty on 9-5-1999. When she, in the company of her husband, lodged the FIR Exhibit PD/2 on 9-5-1999 at 12.30 p.m. The Investigating Officer, after recording the FIR-PD/2, inspected the place of occurrence; prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence; Exhibit PL. The prosecutrix produced before him her salwar which was taken into possession vide memo exhibit PE; recorded the statement of PW2 Nirmal Singh and he also received the medicolegal examination report conducted by PW3 Dr. J. K. Sidhu at 10.15 p.m. on 9-5-1999. On completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in Court. The accused was charged under Sections 376, 452 and 506 IPC to which appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) In support of the charges, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. PW 4 is the prosecutrix and PW 2 is the eye-witness who had seen the accused running away out of the house of the prosecutrix. PW 1 had conducted the medicolegal examination on the accused person and he had opined Vide his report Exhibit PA/1 that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was incapable of performing sexual intercourse. PW 3 Doctor J. K. Sidhu who had conducted the medicolegal examination on the person of prosecutrix, has stated that vagina admitted two fingers. Her secondary sexual characters were well developed. Her external genitalia was normal. There was no mark of violence on her private parts. PW 5 Satish Kumar, architect has prepared the rough site plan Exhibit PF of the place of occurrence. PW 5 Constable Gurmail Singh and PW 7 HC Tarsem Lal are the formal witnesses. On the closure of the prosecution evidence, accused has been examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him were put to him to which he replied as incorrect and further pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in the case by the prosecutrix. He also explains that there was a dispute regarding village property in front of the house of the prosecutrix. The husband of the prosecutrix wanted to encroach upon that land to which his father had objected. Bhag Singh is the elder brother of the father of the husband of the prosecutrix who sold his land measuring 6 biswas to the father of the accused whereas husband of the prosecutrix wanted to purchase that land. The husband of the prosecutrix had a quarrel with him on that account, therefore, he was involved in this case.