GAGANDEEP SINGH @ GAGAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this judgment, I propose to dispose of two appeals i.e. CRA-S-3845-SB-2013 filed by appellant - Gagandeep Singh @ Gagan and CRA-S-3846-SB-2013 filed by appellant - Jagroop Singh @ Roopa, both of them being accused in FIR No.295 dtd. 14/5/2011, under Ss. 294, 506, 376, 120-B IPC and 67(a,b,c) and 68 of Information Technology Act, registered with Police Station Assandh, who were tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Exclusive Court of the cases of Heinous Crime against Women), Karnal and vide order dtd. 7/10/2013, they along with their co-accused Gur Lal Singh @ Lali were convicted for the offences under Ss. 376 and 506 read with Sec. 120-B IPC, whereas for the remaining offences they were acquitted and vide order dtd. 9/10/2013 they (the appellants) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 each for the offence under Sec. 120-B read with Sec. 376 IPC and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 each for the offence under Sec. 506 read with Sec. 120-B IPC and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each. However, it was ordered that if fine was paid, 50% of the same shall be released in favour of the victim in view of the provisions of Sec. 357-A Cr.P.C.

(2.) All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused-convicts, who are appellants before this Court prayed that the appeals be accepted, the impugned judgment of their conviction and order of sentence be set aside and they be acquitted of the charge framed against them.

(3.) Briefly stated, facts of the case, as per prosecution story, are that complainant Narinder Singh had submitted a complaint dtd. 14/5/2011 to the police stating therein that his daughter (name withheld to protect her identity in view of Sec. 228-A IPC and as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court Court in case titled State of Karnataka Vs. Puttaraja, 2004(1) RCR(Cri.) Supreme Court, 113 (SC) (hereinafter referred to as the 'prosecutrix/victim') aged about 15 years was student of 10+1 class going to the school daily; that accused Gur Lal Singh @ Lali, a resident of Khijrabad by photographic tricks put face of the victim on the nude body of some woman, uploading the same on the social media to cause mental harassment to the victim and to defame her; that he also used to give threats to kill the victim.