VIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 03.02.96, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which, it convicted the accused (now appellants), and sentenced them as under:- Name of the accused (now appellant) Name of the accused (now appellant) Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded 1 2 3 Vir Singh Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default thereof to further under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Rohtas Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default thereof to further under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Parveen Kumar Under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default thereof to further under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that on 31.03.94, Desraj, his wife Veera, and his children, including the prosecutor, who was aged about 16 years, were sleeping in their house. At about 11.00 PM, the accused criminally trespassed into the house of Desraj. They woke up the prosecutor and took her outside the house. Desraj, and his wife, came behind them. In the meanwhile, Bhajan Lal, brother of Des Raj, and Salwinder, neighbourer, also came there. A jeep was standing outside the house of Desraj. The accused took the prosecutor in the said jeep by inducing her. Desraj, and his family members, tried to locate the prosecutor, but they could not succeed. Ultimately, a statement, on 05.04.94, was made by Desraj, which formed the basis of the first information report, exhibit PQ. Thereafter, Jhuthar Singh, who was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector, in Police Station Bhuna, accompanied by the complainant, as also his two companions, came to his house. He recorded the statements of the wife of the complainant, as also of Bhajan Lal, and Salwinder. The site plan of the said place exhibit PS, was prepared with correct marginal notes. The prosecutor and the accused were searched, but could not be located.

(3.) ON 15.04.94, the Investigating Officer, took the prosecutor to a Judicial Magistrate and got recorded her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the intervening period, the custody of the prosecutor was entrusted to her parents, vide memo PV. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challenged.