KALA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 6-6-1995 passed by-the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 452/ 366 of the Indian Penal Code and each of the two appellants has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal and which can be gathered from the record of the trial court are that the proxecutrix Rajwant Kaur was engaged with appellant Kala Singh alias Daljit Singh about 1 1/2 years prior to the day of the occurrence. Appellant Nishan Singh is the brother-in-law of Kala Singh. However, this engagement was called off mutually due to certain reasons. One month prior to the date of the occurrence, Rajwant Kaur was engaged to one Angrej Singh.

(3.) ON 31-3-1990, the prosecutrix along with appellant Kala Singh alias Daljit Singh was apprehended by Assistant Sub-Inspector Darbara Singh, Investigating Officer on the pointing out of Sarwan Singh, brother-in-law of Major Singh. Statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161, Cr. P. C. was recorded. She was medically examined from the Civil Hospital. Both the appellants were arrested and they were also got medically examined. The parcel containing the swabs was sent to the Chemical Examiner and the report Ex. PQ was received. During investigating, rough site plan of the spot of occurrence, was prepared and the School Leaving Certificate Ex. P. 3 in respect of the age of the prosecutrix was taken into possession. After completing the investigation a charge sheet was filed against both the appellants.