JARNAIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROSECUTRIX is Mst. Inderjeet Kaur (P. W. 4 ). She lived at Chak No. 21 BB. Padampur. Her step mother is Mst. Sarjeet Kaur (P. W. 3 ). Her father is Jagat Singh (P. W. 2), who worked as a driver, employed by the Rajasthan Road-ways, Ganganagar. It is alleged that Mst Inderjeet Kaur was on visiting terms with accused Jarnail Singh. They also indulged at times in talks with each other in jarnail Singh's fields. On August 26, 1968, at about 11 a. m. , Inderjeet Kaur went to Jarnail Singh's field with a basket for fetching grass. She took with her a 'khurpi' (scythe ). When she was mowing grass, Jarnail Singh came to her and felled her down on the ground Her 'salwar' was taken out of one leg and her 'kachha' (underwear) was also removed. She was then forcibly ravished for a minute or two. Her cry attracted two wayfarers, namely, Sukh Ram (P. W. 5) and Chandan Singh (P. W. 7 ). On a challenge, thrown by the two witnesses Jarnail Singh left the victim and went away. The two persons escorted her to her house. Having been apprised of the happening, Sarjeet Kaur (P. W. 3) sent Mahendra Singh (P. W. 6) to Ganganagar to convey information relating to the incident to her husband Jagat Singh. Jagat Singh went to his house and then proceeded to the police station, Padampur. The Sub-Inspector of police first asked Jagat Singh to produce eye-witnesses. He then took two eye-witnesses. Sukhram and Chandan Singh, to him. Thereafter the Station House Officer recorded first information repo-t (Ex P. 2) on August 28, 1968, at 9 p. m. Inderjeet Kaur was examined, on August 28, 1968, by Dr. Har Govind, (P. W. 9 ). No injury was found on her person, nor on her private part. He, however, noticed tear on her hymen, which showed that there had been sexual intercourse with her. The Doctor did not record a finding that such an inter-course had been against her will. Accused Jarnail Singh was also medically examined by Dr. Shreenath (P. W. 1 ). He did not discern any mark of injury any where on his body. The Doctor further opined that he was capable of performing sexual act. After the investigation was concluded, the police presented a challan against accused Jarnail Singh in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karanpur. The said Magistrate conducted preliminary inquiry and committed the accused to the court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, to take trial u/s. 376, IPC. The case was tried by the Asstt. Sessions Judge of the place. The accused denied to have committed the alleged crime. In support of its case the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. In his statement, recorded u/s. 342, Cr. P. C. the accused took the flea that he committed no crime and that he was a married person and was leading a family life, The prosecution allegations, according to him, are false. Ha did not produce any evidence in his defence. The Assistant Sessions Judge, Ganga-nagar, by his judgment, dated May 21, 1970, found Jarnaial Singh guilty under sec. 876, I. P. C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years. Jarnail Singh's appeal was dismissed by Sessions Judge Ganganagar, on August, 19, 1971.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the above verdict, Jarnail Singh has taken the present revision application. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the two witnesses, Sukhram ( P. W. 5 ) and Chandan Singh ( P. W. 7 ), were not present on the spot at the time of the occurrence. They are gotup witnesses and, therefore, their evidence should not have been trusted by the court below. The statement of Mst. Inderjeet Kaur (P. W. 4), counsel has persuasively submitted, is also unworthy of credence. If at all any sexual inter course, counsel adds, was performed on the date of the occurrence, it positively took place with her consent. The prosecutrix, according to learned counsel, was above 16 years of age. Learned Deputy Government Advocate supported the judgment of the court below.