STATE Vs. SURINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 100 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) Before dealing with the grounds of challenge taken by the Appellant in the memorandum of appeal and elaborated during the course of arguments, it would be appropriate to take note of factual aspects of the case.

(3.) As per the prosecution story, on 19th April, 2008, the prosecutrix presented an application in Police Station, Thathri for registration of an FIR against: (1) Surinder Singh; (2) Kamla Devi; (3) Ajay Kumar; (4) Hari Chand; (5) Gouran Devi; and (6) Rajni Devi. In the aforesaid application, the prosecutrix alleged that on 17th April, 2008 at about 7.00 p.m while she was going to feed grass to her cattle, she was called by accused Rajni Devi on the pretext that she had some important work with her. On the request of aforesaid Rajni Devi, the prosecutrix claims that when she went upwards and saw accused Surinder Singh standing there. In the application, it was further pleaded that after calling the prosecutrix upwards, Rajni Devi fled away and accused Surinder Singh, who was already standing there, forcibly caught hold of her, took her inside and committed rape with her for two days by keeping her in illegal confinement. It was also mentioned in the complaint that she was also threatened that in case she raises any hue and cry she would be eliminated. On the basis of aforesaid report lodged by the prosecutrix, an FIR bearing No. 24/2008 under Sections 342/376/109 RPC was registered in the Police Station concerned and the investigation was handed over to one Sh. Noor Hussain, IHC/113 Police Post Prem Nagar. He appears to have visited the spot, prepared the site plan and conducted the initial investigation. Thereafter, on the directions of Court issued to IGP Jammu Zone, investigation was handed over to Smt. Khurshid Begum, ASI Police Station Bhaderwah to conduct later part of the investigation, which included the recording of the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 She also got the statement of prosecutrix recorded from the Court under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix was medically examined once again from Doda Hospital and medical report was obtained. During the course of investigation, potency test of accused-Surinder Singh was got conducted from District Hospital Doda and attested copy of date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix was also obtained which indicated her date of birth as 01.01.1993. Accordingly, she was found to be minor. Further formalities required in the investigation including the seizure of trousers of the prosecutrix and sending them to FSL for chemical examination were also completed. Upon investigation, the police found the charges as proved against accused Surinder Singh and two others, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Accordingly, a charge sheet was lodged before the Court. Accused Surinder Singh was charged under Sections 363/376/342 RPC whereas accused respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were charged under Sections 363/342/109 RPC. Since none of the accused pleaded guilty, therefore, they were put to trial.