SUBHASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 1.10.1997 and order dated 3.10.97 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala who convicted Subhash and Sunita appellant as follows :- Subhash appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Sunita appellant was convicted under Sections 114, 342 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and following sentences were passed on her :- (1) Under Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code - 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. (2) Under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. (3) Under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine she was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the sentences awarded to appellant Sunita were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF case of the prosecution is that on 9.10.1993 ASI Jai Pal of Police Station Naraingarh alongwith other police officials was present near old Bus Stand of Naraingarh in connection with patrolling when prosecutrix Sunita, her father and mother Jogindro Devi met the said ASI. Prosecutrix Sunita gave statement to the police to the effect that on 7.10.1993 she had not gone to her school as her mother Jogindro was ill and had stayed at the house. She further stated that she was studying in 9th class in Government Girls High School, Naraingarh at that time. Her mother Jogindro had gone to village Khanpur for taking medicine. At about 10.00 A.M., she was all alone at the house when Sunita appellant came to her house and asked the prosecutrix to accompany her. Sunita appellant took the prosecutrix to her house. Sunita then asked the prosecutrix to sit on the bed. When prosecutrix inquired from Sunita accused about the matter, the latter told the prosecutrix to wait. In the meanwhile Sunita accused bolted door from outside. The story of the prosecution was that appellant Subhash was already hidden in the room. He grappled with the prosecutrix and made her to lie on the bed. When prosecutrix tried to raise alarm, appellant Subhash put a piece of cloth in the mouth of the prosecutrix and thereafter he caught the hands of the prosecutrix and with his one hand and opened the string of her salwar with the other hand. Then appellant Subhash removed his pants and underwear and committed the offence of rape with Sunita. Thereafter Subhash accused took out the cloth from the mouth of the prosecutrix who started weeping. Meanwhile Jogindro mother of the prosecutrix and her uncle Pala Ram came at the spot. Sunita appellant opened the door. After this both the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. Prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her mother and uncle Pala Ram. Then she was taken to the house. Panchayats were held in the village for 2/3 days but as no justice was given to the prosecutrix and her family members by the panchayat, resultantly the matter was reported to the police on 9.10.1993.

(3.) VIDE order dated 17.3.1994 charge under section 376 I.P.C. was framed against Subhash-appellant while charges were framed against Sunita accused under Sections 114, 342 and 366-A of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were read over and explained to both the appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.