PURAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.1.1994 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trail No. 745/35 of 1992/93. Appellants Puran Singh and Lakhbir Kaur (of Cr. Appeal No. 39 of 1994) were convicted under Sec. 368 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the I.P.C. and both have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 and in default of payment of fine a further period of Sentence of R.I. for six months. Appellant Kamlesh Punyark (of Cr. Appeal No. 41/94) has been convicted under Secs. 366 and 366 -A of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 under each count. In default of payment of fine, further sentence of period of two years. The sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case is brief is that the victim girl Rabindra Kaur alias Baby (P.W. 8) in her fardbeyan (Ext. 1) recorded on 4.10.1989 at 22.30 hours in the house of the informant alleged that she is aged about 15 years and student of Matriculation. About seven months ago on 8.2.1989 at about 1 Oclock in the noon, she had gone to the house of her brother Sardar Mahendra Singh (P.W. 4) to watch over the ceremonies of the marriage of daughter of Kailash Agrawal, a neighbour of her brother. She watched the ceremony from the roof of her brothers house and while she -was returning after few minutes, she saw appellant Kamlesh Punyark standing by the side of her house. Appellant Kamlesh Punyark was a tenant in the house of co -accused Sardar Narendra Singh alias. Billa for 3 -4 months. Appellant Kamlesh Punyark called her and asked to look over the paintings made by him but she refused. Appellant Kamlesh Punyark insisted to look at his paintings and she was taken by his words and entered his premises. She was given some paintings to look at. In the meantime, a person who has covered his face appeared and caught hold of her by braids and dragged her away in the courtyard of the house. She tried to rescue herself and in scuffle the clothes from the mouth of the said person came out and she identified him as accused Sardar Narendra Singh alias Billa, who was originally resident of Ludhiyana but he was living in the said house for some time. As such, she knew him from before. It is further alleged that appellant Kamlesh Punyark gagged her neck by pressing. She tried to raise alarm but could not do so because her neck was pressed by the appellant. She was taken inside a room and Kamlesh Punyark locked the room from outside. Co -accused Sardar Narendra Singh stayed inside the room with her. He blind -folded her and gave threat to kill if she raised alarm. She was given a tablet and forced to swallow it with the help of a glass of water. Co -accused Sardar Narendra Singh told her that he is from C.B.I, and was in search of extremists. While speaking, Narendra Singh tried to conceal his identity and tried to change his voice but she identified him both by voice and face. Accused Sardar Narendra Singh also pretended and told her that a letter has been recovered from the pocket of Sardar Narendra Singh in her name. In this way for about 6 -7 hours, she was confined in the room and accused Sardar Narendra Singh tried to persuade her to accompany with him. It is further alleged that the next morning, appellant Kamlesh Punyark appeared and administered an injection in her right elbow and thereafter, she became unconscious. She regained consciousness and found herself at a different place. She was carried in a room by accused Sardar Narendra Singh. She was told that she has been brought at Karamchat. She remained confined for about 10 -12 - days and thereafter accused Narendra Singhs mother Shano Devi, sister Jasi and daughter of Jasi arrived at that place and they all threatened her and stated that she is daughter of an enemy, that is why, she has been kidnapped and also threatened that her brother would also be kidnapped. It is further alleged by the informant that accused Sardar Narendra Singh had forcibly smeared vermilian on her scalp and stated that he had married with her. The informant rubbed away vermilian, there upon Sardar Narendra Singh put pressure upon her and persuaded to marry with him. It is further alleged that in absence of Sardar Narendra Singh, her family members named above, constantly kept watch on her for about two months. She was confined there by accused Sardar Narendra Singh and thereafter, she was transported on a while car to Haidargarh. In the car his family members also accompanied her. Whenever she tried to raise alarm in the car, she was gagged by accused Sardar Narendra Singh. At Haidargarh, she was taken to the house of appellant Sardar Puran Singh with whom she was acquainted from before. Haidargarh is a small town in the district of Barabanki (Uttar Pradesh). She was confined in a room in the house of Sardar Puran Singh, who covered the windows of the room by plastic sheet so that he should be detected from outside. It is further alleged that Sardar Puran Singh used to threaten her to marry with Sardar Narendra Singh, otherwise she would be killed, but the informant resisted and refused to marry with him. It is further alleged that accused Narendra Singh forcibly committed rape on her on several occasions and whenever, she made protest, she was threatened at the point of pistol. After about five months stay at Haidargarh, she was taken to a lawyers house at Jagrawan in the district of Ludhiana by train. She was under constant watch by accused Sardar Narendra Singh. There also accused Sardar Narendra Singh committed rape, on her forcibly. It is further alleged that appellant Kamlesh Punyark appeared at Jagrawan and started giving threat to her to marry with Sardar Narendra Singh. It is further alleged in her fardbeyan that on 27.9.1989 at about 1 Oclock in the noon her brother Sardar Mahendra Singh (P.W. 7) along with his two friends arrived there. She started weeping after seeing her brother and narrated the entire occurrence. After some time, accused Sardar Narendra Singh and Kamlesh Punyark came there and started to Report before her brother and requested to be excused for the offence they committed. Thereafter, she was brought back her house at Dehri by her brother and his friends. On 4.10.1989 the police arrived and recorded her fardbeyan, on the basis of which the case was registered against six accused -persons, who were charge -sheeted, except accused Lakhbir Kaur, who was made accused subsequently. After completing investigation the charge -sheet was submitted against three accused -persons who were facing trial and accused Sardar Narendra Singh, Shano Devi, Jassi Kaur and Papli were shown as absconder.

(3.) THE case of the defence is that they have been falsely implicated because of enmity. Their further defence is that the informant was a consenting party and she willingly left her house with accused Sardar Narendra Singh and married of her own will. The case was registered after eight months of the occurrence when the family members of the girl put pressure on her when she returned back to her parents house, the prosecution case is an exaggeration of the actual fact.