SUGAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 19.3.1998/ order of sentence dated 20.3.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Sugar, Kalu @ Pehlad and Aidal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- each under Section 376(2) (g) of IPC and in default of payment of the same, the defaulter to further undergo imprisonment for four months and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each under Section 506 of IPC and in default of payment of the same, the defaulter to further undergo imprisonment for one month with a further direction that the substantive sentences of all these accused shall run concurrently.

(2.) TERSELY put, the facts of the prosecution case are that on the intervening night of 29/30.8.1996 at about 12:30 midnight, the prosecutrix X (name of the victim to prevent her social victimisation is not being indicated in view of Premia alias Prem Parkash v. State of Rajasthan, 2008(4) RCR(Criminal) 539 : 2008(5) RAJ 490 (SC) wife of Pohap Singh along with her children was asleep at a tubewell, when her husband was away to some work. On hearing some voice, she saw Aidal, Sugar and Kalu accused standing close to her cot. Kalu was armed with a pistol. They all three threatened her that if she raised alarm, she will be done to death. First of all, Sugar accused and thereafter Aidal and Kalu one by one committed rape on her. Her husband being not there, she narrated this occurrence to her husband's brother Satpal's wife, who conveyed the same, in turn, to her husband. She apprised her own husband about this occurrence on his return to home in the evening. When the prosecutrix, her husband and her husband's brother were on their way to the police station, they came across ASI Sukhbir Singh, whom she delivered application. This ASI by making endorsement on it, got registered the case. In due course of time, the accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of learned Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the same to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused.

(3.) WHEN examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, all the three accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them. The accused Pehlad has come up with the plea that "The present case has been fastened upon us by the complainant party in collusion with Satya Narain SI/SHO. In a case Ranbir v. Satender Pal about the dispute over agricultural land, Sugar and Ranbir were arrested falsely. A complaint was made against SI Satya Narain by Ranbir and Sugar accused to SP, Faridabad on 7.9.1996 and to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India on 9.8.1996. Satya Narain PW was having a grudge against us and on that account, he colluded with the complainant party and implicated us falsely in this case. Basanti is habitual of making false report. I am innocent." His co-accused have adopted a similar plea.