MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 10.08.1994, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which, it convicted the accused (now appellant), for the offence, punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. It was also directed that, in case of realization of fine, a sum of Rs. 4,000/-, be given as compensation, to the parents of the prosecutrix (name not being mentioned, in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court).

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that on 12.07.1992, at about 8.00 PM, Sub Inspector Mohan Lal, alongwith H.C. Satish Kumar, and other Police officials, were present near scooter stand, Railway Station, in connection with patrolling, where Raj Dev, met the Police party, and gave statement PA, to Sub Inspector Mohan Lal, to the effect that, on 12.07.1992, at about 7.45 PM, when he was returning from Manimajra, towards his village Darwa, on foot, and crossed half of the jungle of Sefaida (eucalyptus) trees, he heard hue and cries of a child. He went near the place of occurrence, and found accused Mohinder Kumar, lying naked, on a minor girl and pressing her. Mohinder Kumar, accused, was seen committing rape, on the prosecutrix, who was crying with pain. It was further stated that he went to the accused, and lifted him, from the girl, to prevent him from further committing sexual assault. It was further stated that he enquired of the accused of his name and he disclosed the same as Mohinder Kumar. When the accused was lifted from the prosecutrix, he found the penis of the accused, in erected position, which got discharged. The semen dischared from the penis of the accused fell on the frock P1, of the prosecutrix, and pant P2 of the accused. The prosecutrix had sustained injuries, on her person, at the hands of the accused. When Raj Dev, tried to pacify the prosecutrix, the accused managed to escape. It was further stated that, on enquiry, the prosecutrix disclosed her name, and also her residence. Thereafter, the complainant, took the girl, with him, and went to Rajiv Colony, and after ascertaining about her residence, he handed over the custody of the prosecutrix, to her mother. After narrating the occurrence to the mother of the prosecutrix, he left for the Police Station, where Assistant Sub Inspector Mohan Lal, met him. The aforesaid statement PA, was reduced into writing, by the Sub Inspector, which was read-over and explained to the complainant, who signed the same, after admitting it as correct. The complainant also handed over the pant P2 of the accused, which was taken into possession, by the Investigating Officer, vide memo PW9/A, after converting the same, into a parcel, duly sealed with the seal bearing impression 'ML'. The seal after use was handed over to Head Constable Satish Kumar, prosecution witness. After recording the statement, the Sub Inspector made endorsement PA/3, and sent the same to the Police Station, for registration of the case. On receipt of the statement PA, formal first information report PA/1, was recorded by Sub Inspector Sukhpal Singh Rana. Thereafter, Sub Inspector Mohan Lal, went, in search of the accused, to Mauli Jagran Colony. At that place, the Sub-Inspector, learnt that the prosecutrix had been taken to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. He went to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, and made written request PW18/A, to the doctor, regarding the fitness of the prosecutrix, to give statement, whereupon, the doctor gave opinion, that the prosecutrix was the minor child, and not in a position, to give statement. In the same request, he asked for the supply of medico-legal report of the prosecutrix, which was supplied to him.

(3.) ON his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the accused, which was read-over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.