DINESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of Crl. Appeal No. 1122-SB of 2001, filed by Dinesh and Crl. Appeal No. 1215-SB of 2001, filed by Nath and Jawala. Both these appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 11.8.2001 and the order of sentence dated 16.8.2001, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby all the three accused have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Accused Dinesh has been further convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 363 IPC and to undergo RI for a period of six months under Section 506 IPC.

(2.) ON 14.7.1998, one Dall Chand resident of Mohalla Tara Nagar, Sonepat, father of the prosecutrix Gomti, made a complaint to Police station Sonepat that his daughter Gomti, who was aged about 13/14 years and studying in 8th class, was missing since 9.7.1998. Subsequently, on 22.7.1998, the prosecutrix Gomti appeared before Incharge, Police Station Sanghipur, Partapgarh (UP) and made statement that about 15 days back, accused Dinesh, who was a tenant in their house at Sonepat, took her to drain (nala) on the pretext that he wants to have some discussion with her, from where she was taken to Delhi under threat. She was taken to the house of accused Jawala, where she was kept for two days. It was further alleged that she was being raped by accused Dinesh and Jawala and one other person. Thereafter, accused Dinesh took her to his sister's house in District Partapgarh where he also committed rape upon her against her wishes. She further stated that one day, Dinesh and his sister had gone out of home, then his brother-in-law Nathu also committed rape upon her. She further stated that the accused were planning to sell her to some third person. When no body was at house, she escaped from their custody, came to the police station and made statement. After recording the aforesaid statement, the police of Police Station Sonepat was informed. The accused were arrested and on the basis of the aforesaid statement of Gomti, FIR No. 421 dated 3.8.1998 was registered against the accused at Police Station City Sonepat under Sections 363/372/376/506 IPC. After completion of investigation, the accused were sent to face trial under Sections 363, 372, 376, 506 IPC.

(3.) ON the basis of statements of PW-4, Dall Chand, father of the prosecutrix, PW-2 Dr. Anil Kumar, Dental Surgeon, who conducted the dental examination of the prosecutrix, PW-11 Dr. Ms. Kiran Malik, Medical Officer, PHC Charwa, District Koshambi (U.P.), who medico-legally examined the prosecutrix Gomti on 24.7.1998, PW-14 Dr. Promila Jain, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sonepat, who conducted radiological examination of Gomti and the birth certificate, Ex. P-6, of Gomti, issued by Sub-Registrar Birth and Death, Municipal Council, Sonepat, the trial Court came to the conclusion that at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, the prosecutrix Gomti was aged about 14-1/2 years. Further, the trial Court, while relying upon the statement of PW-3 Gomti, the prosecutrix, being reliable and trustworthy, corroborated by medical evidence i.e. the statement of PW-11 Dr. Ms. Kiran Malik, has held that the rape was committed upon the prosecutrix, without her consent, by accused Dinesh at Sonepat, Delhi and in District Partapgarh, by accused Jawala at Delhi and by accused Nathu in District Partapgarh. Accused Dinesh was also found guilty of the offence under Section 363 IPC for adbudction of Gomti and under Section 506 IPC for giving threat to her life. The concluding portion of the judgment of the trial Court is re-produced below :-