GURDEEP SINGH @ GURDEEP Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts:

(2.) MADAN Lal complainant, the father of the prosecutrix (PW-7) Chander Kanta, was residing with his family in H.No. 1 B/134, NIT, Faridabad. A part of this house had also been leased out to Nachhatar Singh, the father of the accused Gurdip Singh about 3-1/2 years prior to the incident. The complainant, however, wanted Nachhatar Singh to vacate the house because he suspected the intentions of Gurdip Singh accused towards his daughter. He also filed an ejectment application against Nachhatar Singh and the same was pending. On the night of the occurrence i.e. 11th May, 1986, the complainant came to his house at about 10 PM and found that all the other members of his family including Chander Kanta wee sleeping in the courtyard of their house but he found after he got up in the morning that Chander Kanta was not sleeping in the bed. The complainant searched for her in the rented portion of the house that was in the possession of Nachhatar Singh, but without success. Frustrated in his efforts to trace her out, he ultimately ledged a report to the Police at Police Station Kotwali, Faridabad, and on his statement Ram Mehar ASI recorded the First Information Report Ex. P1 for offences punishable under section 363/366 IPC in which he expressed his suspicions that Gurdip Singh had kidnapped his daughter. Chander Kanta however returned to her house the same evening and was taken for her medical examination the next day. Her statement was also recorded by the ASI and under section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Ilaqa Magistrate in which she stated that she had been enticed by the accused to go upstairs to the room that he was occupying and was thereafter raped by him. The accused was accordingly arrested on 14th May, 1986 and his medical examination conducted and after the completion of the investigation, the accused Gurdip Singh along with one Babu Lal non-appellant, were charged for offences punishable under sections 363/366/376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) WHEN examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he had been falsely implicated by Madan Lal on account of the rent dispute pending between the parties and that Chander Kanta was in any case more than 18 years of age and of loose character.