JASBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-4-2003/order of sentence dated 1-5-2003 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala whereby he convicted and sentenced Jasbir Singh accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under S. 366 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under S. 368 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- under S. 342 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under S. 506 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and also convicted and sentenced Sinder Pal Kaur alias Sinder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under S. 368 read with S. 366 of IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months with a further direction that the substantive sentences of Jasbir Singh shallrun concurrently and on realisation of fine, an. amount of Rs. 2,000/- shall be paid as the compensation to the victim under Section 357 of Cr. P. C.

(2.) The facts in brief are that on 29-7-2001, ASI Jit Singh along with other police officials being on patrol duty happened to be present at bus stoppage of Village Siamal Mairi, where Naranjan Singh made statement before him in terms that he has got five daughters and a son out of whom, his four daughters have been married off. His younger daughter, the prosecutrix (name of the victim is not being indicated to prevent her social victimisation in view of Premia alias Prem Parkash v. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 539 (SC) : (AIR 2009 SC 351)) was 18 years of age. She had appeared in her matriculation examination. On 15-5-2001, he along with his wife Jagmail Kaur was away from their house in connection with some private affair. Around 6.00 p.m., when they returned home, they found their daughter (prosecutrix) missing from the house. They made search with their relatives about her. When she could not be found, on 5-7-2001, they reported matter to the police with regard to her missing from the house. At about 10.30 a.m., he received a telephonic message from his daughter. She narrated by weeping that she has been kept confined forcibly by Jasbir Singh accused, who had brought her from the house of his maternal aunt Sinder Pal Kaur accused and that she is making this telephonic call by giving slip to the accused Jasbir Singh. She further told that on 15-5-2001, when they (referring to Naranjan Singh complainant and his wife) were away from the house, meanwhile, the accused Jasbir Singh, a relative of Mohan Singh of their village came to their house and enticed her away by saying that he would satisfy all her desires as he was running a big business and she was allured by his such talks and further narrated that he took her with him and when she found that he was not having even his own house, he forced her to many with him. If she refused to do so, he would kill her lonely brother and members of her family. By putting her under fear, he has performed marriage with her in a Gurdwara. He has threatened that in the Court, she will have to say, whatever he was dictating to her and accordingly she did. She further told that in all such episode, there was involvement of Sinder Pal Kaur accused. On the basis of this statement, FIR was registered against both the accused. From the house of Tarsem Lal son of Jagir Chand resident of Sialwa Majri, P. S. Kurali, District Ropar, the prosecutrix along with the accused Jasbir Singh was recovered. Both the accused were arrested on 29-7-2001. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused.

(3.) On commitment, the accused were charged under Ss. 366/368/376/342/506 of IPC to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW 1 Gurcharan Singh, PW 2 Dn Pamela Chopra, PW 3 Dr, Jagrup Singh, PW, 4 Dr. Chander Mahani, PW 5 Naranjan Singh complainant, PW 6 MHC Mohan Singh, PW 7 Lady Constable Bimla Devi, PW 8 ASI Jit Singh, the investigator and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr. PC, both the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. Jasbir Singh, accused put forth that he never enticed or abducted the prosecutrix, who is his legally wedded wife he never committed sexual intercourse against her wishes. The accused Sinder Pal Kaur pleaded false implication. In her defence, she examined DW 1 Surinder Singh, Junior Engineer of the office of Superintending Engineering (Operation Circle) Guru Gobind Singh Super Thermal Plant, Ropar. They closed their defence evidence. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with their conviction/sentence, they have preferred this appeal.