STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PARVEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Punjab has preferred this appeal against the acquittal of the three respondents herein, namely Parveen Kumar, Vinod Kumar and Satinder Kumar. These respondents faced trial before the Addl. Sessions Judge Gurdaspur in Sessions Case No. 95/1988 on a charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. After trial, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge found the case against the respondents doubtful and acquitted them.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 19.6.1988. Santosh Rani (P.W.2.) went to the shop of Banna Halwai for purchasing milk and on the way, the first respondent Parveen Kumar called her and asked her to come into his glass shop, but Santosh Rani did not do so and went to her house. Next day, i.e., 20.6.1988 at about 8.00 a.m. when Santosh Rani was returning from the shop of Banna Halwai, the first respondent Parveen Kumar came from his shop and took her forcibly into glass shop where she was raped, at first by the first respondent, then by the other two respondents. Santosh Rani did not mention about this to anybody, including her mother and brother. Once again on 21.6.1988 at about 12 noon when she was returning after purchasing sugar from the depot of Rupa and reached the shop of the first respondent on the way, the first respondent Parveen Kumar once again caught hold of her and forcibly took her into the glass shop where once again she was raped by respondents 1 to 3. When she went back to her house, she narrated the entire occurrence to her mother Ratni Devi (P.W.3.). On the next day, she was taken to the Civil Hospital Gurdaspur where she was examined by Dr. Paramjit Chaudhary who found no marks of violence on the body of Santosh Rani. But the doctor found her bymen was ruptured and the edges were slightly reddish and tender to touch. The vagina admitted two fingers and Santosh Rani felt pain on examination. The medico-legal report and the vaginal swab were handed over to Ratni Devi by the doctor.

(3.) THE respondents-accused denied the charge. Santosh Rani gave evidence about the alleged occurrence. The doctor who examined her deposed as P.W.1. The mother of Santosh Rani was examined as P.W.3. The police officer who recorded the statement of Santosh Rani was examined as P.W.5, while the investigating officer was examined as P.W.6. Dr. Chandanjit Singh of Police Hospital Gurdaspur was examined as P.W.7 to say that he examined the three respondents-accused and found nothing to show that they were incapable of performing the sexual intercourse. As pointed out already, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not accept the case of the prosecution and acquitted the respondents-accused. Therefore, we have now to see whether the State has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused.