MOTHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal appeal has been filed by Motha Singh, son of Joginder Singh and Ghudha, son of Mit Singh against their conviction and sentence. Both the appellants, along with one Rajinder Singh, son of Surjit Singh (Proclaimed Offender) were found to have committed the offences by the Investigating Officer. Both the appellants were tried by the Court of additional Sessions Judge,Ludhiana who sentenced Motha Singh to five years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 376 IPC and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and was further sentenced under Section 363 IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment; under Section 366 IPC for two years; under Section 342 IPC for one year and under Section 506 IPC for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- each under these sections. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Accused Gudha alias Gurmail Singh was sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 366 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. It has been further ordered that all the sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) THE FIR was lodged on a written complaint submitted by Harbans Singh, wherein it was stated that he is resident of Village Manak Majra, Police Station Sadar Khanna and is employed. His daughter Bhinder Kaur alias Niki, aged about 17 years was minor on 25.8.1983. At about 8.00 P.M, she had gone out to ease herself, when she had not returned, the family members became worried. After two days when his daughter had not returned, then on 27.8.1983, he came to the Police Station to report. It is further stated that on 1.9.1993 at about 5:30 P.M, Bhinder Kaur alias Niki returned home, she disclosed that on 25.8.1993, when she had gone to ease herself near the toilets, two persons on a blue colour scooter which was without number, came and they forcibly took her away in a room in the fields. One person to whom they were calling Rajinder Singh was already in the field. Rajinder Singh had opened the door of the room where both the persons forcibly dragged her. When the light was switched on, she realised that out of two persons, one was Motha Singh, who was servant of Bhajan Singh and another person was Ghuda Singh alias Gurmail Singh who was working as a Tailor. It is stated that Ghuda Singh and Rajinder Singh left the room and Motha forcibly raped Bhinder Kaur and in the morning when Motha had left, then Rajinder Singh detained Bhinder Kaur in another room. In the night, Motha Singh came under the influence of liquor and again forcibly raped her. Motha Singh remained in the room for the whole night. Bhinder Kaur insisted before him that she be allowed to go home, upon which the threat to liquidate her was extended by Motha. To cut short, the details in the FIR, it is further stated that for continuous seven days i.e. upto 1.9.1993 she was unlawfully detained there and forcibly raped by Motha Singh and on 1.9.1993, at about 5.00 A.M in the morning when the Rajinder Singh came to lock the room Bhinder Kaur escaped from the fields on the pretext of going out to ease herself and reached her house. It is further stated that along with his relatives and Bhinder Kaur, he wanted to come to the Police Station, but the accused came and gave the threat that they will liquidate the family as they stated they have kept a watch on his family. Therefore, due to the threat, they had not come to the hospital or Police Station and on 9.9.1993, he made the application, which was reduced into writing in DDR and on the basis of the same FIR was registered in the Police Station, Sadar Khanna, Ludhiana.

(3.) PROSECUTION examined PW.1 Dr. P.D. Singla, who examined Motha Singh and said that he was fit to perform sexual intercourse. PW.2 Dr. Surinder Kaur examined Bhinder Kaur, prosecutrix. She found no mark of violence present on her body. She found no debris under the nails and according to her the gait of patient was normal. No stains were present over the genital. There was no matting of pubic hair. There was no injury over the genital. As per chemical examination, vagina admitted two fingers easily and there was no mark of injury swelling or discoloration. She further opined that Bhinder Kaur was habitual of intercourse. PW.3 is Bhinder Kaur, prosecutrix. She gave broad features of the case as were disclosed in the FIR by her father Harbans Singh. PW.4 is Harbans Singh, complainant and in the Court he reiterated the allegations levelled in the complaint. PW.5 is Sher Singh, Sub Inspector, who had partly investigated the case. PW.6 is Charanji Lal, Head Constable, who has tendered his affidavit Ex.PW6/1 and was not cross-examined.