KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHAN Kumar son of Medu Lal has filed the present criminal appeal and it has been directed against the judgment dated 20.11.1998 and order dated 21.11.1998, whereby the learned trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months, under Section 363 I.P.C., to undergo R.I. for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for nine months, under Section 366 I.P.C.; to undergo R.I. for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 1 years, under Section 376 I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 22 days, under Section 506 I.P.C. The trial court also held that all the substantive sentences awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case can be gathered and summarised as follows :- Jai Kumar PW9 was having six children. Prosecutrix Mamta PW7 was his eldest daughter and according to the complainant she was about 15 years of age as on 13.6.1996. She was a student of 10th class and was studying in Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Karnal. On 13.6.1996 due to summer vacations she did not go to the school. Her father was employed in Social Welfare Department, Karnal. The appellant was known to her as he used to reside in the neighbourhood and the prosecutrix used to treat him as her brother and tied Rakhi on his wrist. Sunita was a class fellow as well as a friend of the prosecutrix due to which appellant and Sunita developed intimacy with each other. On 13.6.1996 the prosecutrix left her house on a bicycle to offer prayer at the Peer. The appellant met the prosecutrix on the way and forcibly took her on a motor-cylce to his house where he committed rape upon her without her consent and will. He also threatened the prosecutrix to kill her in case she disclosed this fact to anybody. After that the prosecutrix was taken by the appellant to Panipat where she was kept in a room for three months and was raped repeatedly without her consent. She was also given beatings. The mother of the appellant came after some time and she brought the prosecutrix and the appellant to Karnal and produced the prosecutrix in the Court, where her statement Ex.Dy was recorded. A case of kidnapping and rape was registered against the appellant on the basis of statement made by Jai Kumar PW9, the father of the prosecutrix, when he failed to trace out the prosecutrix. He also suspected the involvement of the appellant in the kidnapping of her daughter. The statement of Jai Kumar is Ex.PG. The appellant was arrested on 10.10.1996. Prosecutrix was also produced in the court on 11.10.1996 and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by Miss Shalini Singh, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Karnal. The prosecutrix was medico-legally examined by PW1 Dr. (Mrs.) Naresh Saini, who gave her report Ex.PA/1. The doctor also prepared slides after taking secretions of posterior fornices and handed over the same to the police. On the same day, appellant was also got medico-legally examined from PW8 Dr.S.S. Wadhwa, who gave his report Ex.PF. Site plan of the place of occurrence Ex.PB was prepared. On 14.10.1996 the prosecutrix was radiologically examined. Birth certificate of the prosecutrix Ex.PH was collected which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PL. Statements of the witnessed were recorded. After the receipt of the report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PE and conducting other usual investigations, a challan under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 I.P.C. was presented in the Court of Area Magistrate, who supplied the copies of the documents to the appellant and vide commitment order dated 12.11.1996 he committed the appellant to the Court of Session in order to face the trial.

(3.) IN order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined Dr. Naresh Saini PW1, Constable Prem Kumar PW2, HC Ram Narain PW3, Constable Joginder Singh PW4, ASI Rajbir Singh PW5, HC Balbir Kaur PW6, Mamta Devi prosecutrix PW7, Dr. S.S. Wadhwa PW8, Jai Kumar PW9, ASI Ram Karan PW10 and ASI Sube Singh PW11. The prosecution also tendered into evidence report of the office of Director, Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.PE, who found human semen on the salwar, slides and the underwear of the prosecutrix.