SONI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 376 IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 450 IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year under Section 506 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecutrix is married to Raju. She was sleeping along with her three children in her one room tenament. Her husband was away to Ropar. He used to come home twice a week. In the intervening night of 13/14.05.2010 at about 1:00 PM, the accused who lived in the neighbourhood criminally tress-passed into the house and forced himself upon the prosecutrix and stuffed her Chunni in her mouth and raped her. The prosecutrix wore her clothes and came out of the house and complained to her neighbour Darshan Singh and then to the neighbour on the other side of the house. A call was made to the husband who reached at 7:00 AM. The incident was reported to the police around 1:30 P.M. The investigations were completed and the accused was arrested and challan was presented under Section 450, 376, 506 IPC.

(3.) The trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to the punishment mentioned here-in-before. Learned counsel for the appellant had urged that the story was improbable and there was a delay in lodging the FIR and occurrence took place at about 12:30/1:00 AM and the complainant had gone to the house of the Sarpanch at night and there was no reason why the matter could not be reported at night. It was urged that there is a contradiction as the allegations of rape were not disclosed to Darshan Singh PW4 and the time has been used up to concoct a version and there is no injury neither any sign of force nor the door had been broken and the story is not probable. It was urged that there is a team of 8 9 persons who patrol in the village at night and nobody had seen the accused roaming and mere presence of semen in the FSL report would not be enough to convict him and the DNA test was not carried out and when the husband was with the prosecutrix for over six hours.