ANGREJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by Angrej Singh son of Deepu and his mother Smt. Mohindro, both residents of village Thana Police Station Pehowa against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, who held both Angrej Singh and Mohindro guilty for offences under section 336-A and further convicted Angrej Singh under 376 IPC. Both Angrej Singh and Mohindro were awarded five years rigorous imprisonment under section 366 IPC and were imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Angrej Singh was also convicted under section 376 IPC to undorgo seven years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-,in default of payment of fine to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BOTH the appellants were named as accused in case FIR No. 33 dated 25.01.1996 registered at Police Station City Kaithal under Sections 366-A and 376 IPC. The FIR, in the present case, was lodged at the instance of Smt. Manbhari. It will be here to reproduce the FIR which has been reproduced by the trial Court in para 2 of the judgment :

(3.) PW -5 Lajjawati head teacher of Government Primary School proved the school certificate (Ex.PG), in which date of birth of the prosecutrix Omi Devi is recorded as 5.1.1981. PW-6 Dr. R.L. Mittal, who made endorsement on the police application Ex.PH for conducting medical examination of Omi Devi from a lady doctor. PW-7 Rishi Pal, draftsman prepared the scaled site plan. Omi Devi appeared as PW-8. She stated in her statement that she was residing with her maternal grandmother and she knew both the accused. Accused Angrej Singh present in the Court was employed as labourer with Baljit Singh and agricultural land of her grandmother was beyond the land of Baljit Singh and she used to pass through the Kacha path adjoining the fields of Baljit Singh. About one year and five months ago, when she was returning from the fields with fodder (i.e. in the month of January 1996), both the accused met her in the way. In the evening when she took the buffalos for drinking water, the buffalo ran away and in order to help her in catching hold of the buffalo, they took her in tube well kotha of Baljit Singh. She stated that both the appellants took her inside the kotha. When Angrej Singh took her near the cot, Mohindro (appellant) came outside the kotha. There Angrej Singh is said to have committed sexual intercourse with Omi Devi against her consent. Thereafter, Angrej Singh brought a taxi and they took her to village Kurali. There also Angrej Singh committed sexual intercourse without her consent. Both Angrej Singh and prosecutrix Omi Devi spent 10-15 days at Kurali and Bhawanigarh villages and then they came back in a bus to Cheeka, where they were apprehended by the police. She further stated that police did not record her statement at bus stand Cheeka. She was medically examined and her statement was recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In cross-examination, regarding the material portion, she was confronted to show that she improved the version in the Court. She stated that she was not allowed to speak by the accused persons before the taxi driver. It was further stated that they reached village Kurali at about 10.00 p.m. There were ladies and gents of the house. She did not inform any family member about the incident. She stated that Angrej Singh was having a knife. She was under threat and had not disclosed to any body. She admitted that she resided at Kurali for 6-7 days. She used to go to ease herself out but Mohindro used to accompany her. She volunteered that Mohindro disclosed to every body that she is the wife of Angrej Singh. She further stated that in village Bhawanigarh also, she did not disclose regarding the incident to any of the family members. She stated that distance between Bhawanigarh and Cheeka is approximately 10 kilometers. PW-9 Dr. Neelam Kakkar medico-legally exained Omi Devi. On legal examination, it was found that hymen was absent and vagina admitted two fingers easily. She was referred to radiologist for determination of her age. In cross-examination she stated that possibility of Omi Devi being eligible for sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. PW-10 Surat Kant ASI had taken Omi Devi for recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and had also obtained school certificate. PW-11 Manbhari (complainant) reiterated the version given by her in the FIR. PW-12 Ramesh Chand stated regarding arrest of accused at the bus stand along with Omi Devi. PW-13 Giana is a maternal uncle of Omi Devi (prosecutrix). He stated that after she was missing, search was missing, search was made by him in the relations. PW-14 Hukam Chand is the investigating officer, who stated that on 25th January, 1996 Manbhari had made a statement regarding missing of Omi Devi (prosecutrix) from the house.