CRA-S-305-SB-2002 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-305-SB-2002 (OM)
Date of Decision:December 15, 2017
Court on its own motion
…Appellant
Versus
Kulwant Rai and others
…Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present:- Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG Punjab.
Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Legal Aid Counsel
for the respondents.
********
JAISHREE THAKUR, J.
The instant appeal has been arisen out of judgment of
conviction/order dated 09.01.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge,
Hoshiarpur.
2. In brief the facts of the case are that on 25.4.1997, Manjit Kaur
daughter of Nanak Singh resident of Muradpur District Mukerian, aged
about 22 years, boarded a passed from Mukerian for going to Jalandhar.
Manjit Kaur alighted at the bus stop of village Cholang thinking she would
board a bus from there to go to Jalandhar. No bus came to the bus stop at
Cholang for going to Jalandhar till 8 p.m. At that time one Kiran (tailor)
told her to spend the night in his house since it was late and assured Manjit
Kaur that she would be sent to Jalandhar the next morning. She was taken to
1 of 6
16-12-2017 02:42:42 :::
CRA-S-305-SB-2002 -2-
a room behind the bus stop where one Naveen Kumar from Delhi was
present. After some time one Dara and Lovely also joined in and she was
raped by all. Next morning at about 9 a.m. accused Lovely and Naveen took
Manjit Kaur to a tube well motor of Lovely and she was again raped turn by
turn. On 27.04.1997, Kulbir Singh, Gurdev Singh alias Geba, Chain Singh
and also Dalwinder Singh alias Koka and Jaspal Singh came there. Jaspal
Singh was killed by Naveen Kumar. All these persons raped Manjit Kaur
too, who kept quiet out of fear, in order to save herself. On the basis of
statement Ex.PE before Inspector Jaswant Singh, the present FIR was
registered against all the accused. Manjit Kaur the prosecutrix was also
medically examined, as well as the accused, who were found fit to perform
the act of sexual intercourse. The case was committed for trial before the
Courts of Session and charges under sections 376/342/406 IPC were framed
against the accused, to which the accused did not plead guilty and claimed
trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW 1 Dr.
Kewal Singh, PW2 Dr. Gurmail Singh, PW3 Dr.Kishore Kumar Raikhi,
PW4 Manjit Kaur, PW5 ASI Surinder Kumar Sharma, PW6 lady Dr.
Mandeep Kaur, PW7 Dr. O.P Arora, PW 8 Gurbachan Singh, PW9 Sh.
Harkaran Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Dasuya, PW10 Inspector
Jaswant Singh and the prosecution tendered into evidence report of the
chemical examiner Ex.PH/1 and thereafter closed its evidence. The accused
got their statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. denying all
allegations and in the defence examined DW1 Constable Amarjeet Singh
and thereafter closed their evidence.
2 of 6
16-12-2017 02:42:43 :::
CRA-S-305-SB-2002 -3-
4. The Sessions Court, after appreciating the evidence came to the
conclusion that accused Naveen Kumar, Kulwant Rai alias Dara and Ashok
Kumar alias Bittu alias Kiran were guilty of the offence under section
376/342 IPC and convicted them on 09.01.2001 to undergo sentence for a
period of 5 years each along with fine of Rs.5,000/- . The other accused
were exonerated on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case
against them, as Manjit Kaur prosecutrix had nowhere stated that any of the
accused had committed the offence of rape upon her.
5. Kulwant Rai aggrieved against the said order, preferred an
appeal bearing No.CRA-S-274-SB-2001. An application for suspension of
sentence was filed in the said appeal by way of CRM No.49737 of 2001,
which was declined by an order dated 11.2.2002. However, the High Court
noticed that the trial court had convicted the appellant and his co-accused
under sections 376 IPC for a period of 5 years and imposed a fine of Rs.
5,000/- each by showing undue leniency. On this ground, sou moto notice
was issued to the three accused i.e. Kulwant Rai, Naveen Kumar and Ashok
Kumar, for enhancement of their sentence. It is in this background that the
instant appeal bearing no.CRA-S-305-SB- 2002, Court on its own motion
Vs. Kulwant Rai and Others came to be registered.
6. After the passing of sentence, all the three accused were
arrested and it was only Kulwant Rai who filed an appeal. The sentence of
appellant Kulwant Rai was not suspended being a case of gang rape. All the
three accused, after having undergone the sentence awarded by the
Additional Session Judge, were subsequently released from jail as would be
evident from the custody certificate filed in the case of Kulwant Rai.
3 of 6
16-12-2017 02:42:43 :::
CRA-S-305-SB-2002 -4-
7. Mr. H.S. Randhawa learned counsel on behalf of Kulwant Rai
did not press the appeal bearing CRA-S-274-SB-2001, as the appellant has
already undergone the sentence awarded and has since been released.
Under these circumstances, the said appeal has been dismissed being not
pressed.
8. After notice was issued in the present matter i.e. Court on its
own motion Vs Kulwant Rai And Others every effort has been made to
trace Naveen Kumar through non-bailable warrants and the report received
is that he not available. Both Ashok Kumar and Kulwant Rai are
represented through counsel appointed through legal aid.
9. Service has been effected upon Kulwant Rai and Ashok Kumar
in the present appeal whereas, despite numerous attempts by the police, they
have not been able to secure the presence of Naveen Kumar. Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that every possible
effort has been made to secure the presence of Naveen Kumar, through
bailable and non bailable warrants of arrest, however, his whereabouts are
totally unknown. The report as received is that he left his village several
years ago and his brother too does not know as to where he is currently
residing. Consequently as on this date Naveen Kumar remains unserved.
10. Mr. H.S. Randhawa, learned counsel on behalf of Kulwant Rai
and Ashok Kumar urges that even though a heinous crime of rape had been
committed, the respondents in the instant appeal had undergone their
sentence as awarded to them and had been subsequently released. It is urged
that the offence pertained to the year 1997 and since then 20 years had
passed by. At the time of commission of the offence, the accused were not
4 of 6
16-12-2017 02:42:43 :::
CRA-S-305-SB-2002 -5-
very old and now, after having served their sentence, they have settled down
in their regular life and no other case is pending against them. It is argued
that some leniency be shown to them instead of enhancing the sentence
already undergone. In this regard he places reliance upon judgments
rendered in State Of Punjab Vs Gurmit Singh 1996 (1) RCR (Criminal)
533 .
11. In the judgment rendered in Gurmit Singh’s case (supra), the
acquittal of the accused of the charges of rape leveled against them was
challenged in the Supreme Court by both the State as well as the
complainant. While upsetting the judgment of acquittal and addressing the
question of quantum of sentence, it was held that the court has to strike a
just balance “We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the trial court and
convict all the three respondents for offences under Sections
363/366/368 and 376 IPC. So far as the sentence is concerned, the court
has to strike a just balance. In this case the occurrence took place on
30.3.1984 (more than 11 years ago). The respondents were aged between
21-24 years of age at the time when the offence was committed. We are
informed that the respondents have not been involved in any other offence
after they were acquitted by the trial court on 1.6.85, more than a decade
ago. All the respondents as well as the prosecutrix must have by now got
married and settled down in life. These are some of the factors which we
need to take into consideration while imposing an appropriate sentence on
the respondents.”
12. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgment, this court too is
not inclined to enhance the sentence of the three accused even though the
5 of 6
16-12-2017 02:42:43 :::
CRA-S-305-SB-2002 -6-
trial court erred in awarding a lesser punishment. This view is being taken
primarily on the ground that the occurrence is of the year 1997 and all the
three accused have already served their sentence and to incarcerate them
again after a period of 15 years, when they are married and have started life
afresh with children and grandchildren. It is enough that they have had the
threat of enhancement of sentence hanging over their heads like democles
sword for the past 15 years. This would be sufficient punishment.
13. It is in this background, this court does not deem it appropriate
to continue with the instant appeal. Disposed of accordingly.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
December 15, 2017 JUDGE
vijay saini
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
16-12-2017 02:42:43 :::