SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Harjinder Singh vs State Of Pb.Etc on 23 August, 2018

CRA-S-20-SB-2002 1


Date of decision:-23.8.2018

Harjinder Singh



State of Punjab



Present : Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Advocate
for the appellant.

Mr.Dhruv Dayal, Sr.D.A.G., Punjab.


Accused Harjinder Singh faced trial by learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Amritsar, who vide judgment dated 28.11.2001

convicted him for an offence under Section 376 IPC and vide order of

that very date sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a

period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof,

to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

The accused-convict – Harjinder Singh, who is appellant

before this Court prays that the appeal be accepted, the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and he be

acquitted of the charge framed against him.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the prosecution

story are that on 27.1.2000 at about 3:00 p.m., the prosecutrix (name not

1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-08-2018 02:18:19 :::
CRA-S-20-SB-2002 2

being mentioned to conceal her identity), grand-daughter of the

complainant Surjit Kaur was playing with children at village Aasal

Uttar,, Tehsil Patti, then District Amritsar, now District Taran Tarn, in

the meanwhile Harjinder Singh accused living in neighbourhood of the

complainant came there and took away the prosecutrix with him on the

allurement of providing her toffees; that after about half an hour when

the prosecutrix did not return, then the complainant and her son Surta

Singh i.e. father of the prosecutrix started searching for her; that when

they reached near bridge of drain, they heard cries of the prosecutrix and

observed that accused was committing rape upon her, who was lying on

the ground; that her salwar had been brought down; that Surta Singh and

complainant Surjit Kaur raised alarm, then Harjinder Singh accused ran

way from the spot; then the prosecutrix was brought home; that

respectables of the village tried to get the matter compromised between

the parties but those efforts proved futile. Thereafter, the matter was

reported to the police. The statement of complainant Surjit Kaur was

recorded by Inspector Rajinderpal Singh (hereinafter referred to as the

Investigating Officer/I.O.), who after appending his endorsement

thereon sent ruqa to the police station, on the basis of which formal FIR

was recorded. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. The

investigation in the case started. Inspector Rajinderpal Singh recorded

statements of witnesses, prepared rough site plan of the place of

incident. The police officer, who was deputed to get medically examined

the prosecutrix produced her MLR and parcel containing swabs and

blood stained salwar of prosecutrix besides one envelope before the

Investigating Officer, which were duly sealed. Those were taken into

2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-08-2018 02:18:20 :::
CRA-S-20-SB-2002 3

possession by the Investigating Officer. The accused was arrested in this


After completion of investigation and other formalities,

challan against the accused was prepared and filed in the Court of

learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patti.

On presentation of challan in the Court of learned Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Patti, he supplied copies of documents relied upon

in the challan to the accused free of costs as provided under Section 207

Cr.P.C. Then finding that the offence under Section 376 IPC is

exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist

Class, Patti committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge,

Amritsar vide order dated 5.5.2000 from where it was entrusted to the

Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.

On receipt of case in the Court, learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Amritsar, observing that prima facie charge for offence under

Section 376 IPC was disclosed against accused, he was charge-sheeted

accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During the course of its evidence, the prosecution examined

as many as nine witnesses i.e. PW1 Dr.Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu, PW2

Smt.Surjit Kaur, PW3 – the prosecutrix, PW4 Inspector Rajinderpal

Singh, PW5 Rishi Ram, Draughtsman, PW6 Constable Chaman Lal,

PW7 Bhupinder Kaur, Teacher, PW8 SI Gurbachan Singh and PW9

Sukhraj Singh. The report Ex.PX of Chemical Examiner was also

tendered into evidence.

With that the prosecution evidence got concluded.

Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313

3 of 8
30-08-2018 02:18:20 :::
CRA-S-20-SB-2002 4

Cr.P.C., in which all the incriminating circumstances appearing against

him were put to him but he denied the allegations contending that he is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.

Accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.

After hearing arguments, learned trial Court convicted and

sentenced accused Harjinder Singh as mentioned above, which left him

aggrieved and he has filed the present appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record and I find that there is no merit in the present appeal.

In this case, PW2 Surjit Kaur complainant supported the

prosecution story on material aspects deposing as regards accused

Harjinder Singh living in their neighbourhood, taking away her

granddaughter, the prosecutrix, who was playing with other children on

the pretext of giving her toffees/candies and when she did not return, she

along with her son Surta Singh searched for the prosecutrix and while

near drain of village, hearing cries of the prosecutrix and observing that

the prosecutrix was lying on the earth horizontally, she was not having a

salwar, accused Harjinder Singh was committing rape on her and on

their raising alarm, accused ran away. She further stated that efforts for

compromise were going on but those did not materialize, ultimately, she

lodged complaint with the police. The prosecutrix aged about 7 years,

who was found to be a competent witness by the trial Court supported

the prosecution story on material aspects.

Although both these PWs were cross-examined at length on

behalf of the accused but they stuck to their guns and could not be

shattered on material contents. A few minor contradictions and

4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-08-2018 02:18:20 :::
CRA-S-20-SB-2002 5

variations in their statements do not go to the root of matter since those

are bound to occur due to difference in power of perception, observation

and retention of events in various persons and so also due to lapse of

memory due to passage of time etc. The fact cannot be lost sight of that

different persons have got variable memorization of the events. Merely

because a witness slipped at a few places regarding the minute details

does not go to put a question mark over his credibility and truthfulness.

These minor variations and contradictions rather go to show that the

witnesses have deposed in a natural and truthful manner unlike tutored

witnesses who depose in a parrot like manner. I find the account given

by both of them to be worthy of reliance.

No cogent or convincing reason has been suggested or

proved prompted by which, the accused might have been involved in this

case wrongly.

The delay in lodging of the report to the police has been

adequately explained by the prosecution submitting that it was due to the

fact that the respectables of the village were trying to get the matter

compromised between the parties but when those efforts did not prove

fruitful, then the matter was reported to the police.

The medical evidence duly corroborates the ocular

evidence. PW1 Dr.Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu, Medical Officer, Civil

Hospital, Patti, who on 28.1.2000 at 7:30 p.m. had medically examined

the prosecutrix, aged about 7 years and noted the following observation:

History of alleged rape yesterday. Patient was a

female child, apprehensive, un-coperative, weeps, while

being examined. No secondary sexual character

5 of 8
30-08-2018 02:18:20 :::
CRA-S-20-SB-2002 6

development. On physical examination.

(1) Salwar bearing stain mark.

(2) An abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm on the left gluteal


(3) Locally, labia minora and majora inflamed, painful

to touch. A tear with under lying inflamed tissue, 1.0

cm x 0.25 cm on the right postero lateral margin of

vaginal interoitus. Hymen ruptured and inflamed.

Vaginal swab taken from external 1/3 of vagina

salwar and swab handed over to the police.

Nature of injury was simple and probable duration

was within 24 to 36 hours.

On police request dated 21.3.2000, this witness gave his

opinion Ex.PA/1 that injuries on the person of prosecutrix showed that

there was possibility of rape committed on her.

From such deposition, it comes out that the prosecutrix a

minor female child of 7 years was subjected to forcible sexual

intercourse. From the statement of this very doctor, it comes out that

accused Harjinder Singh was fit to perform sexual intercourse.

The prosecutrix got her statement recorded as PW3 had

identified the accused present in the Court to be her tormentor , who had

sexually ravished her.

PW6 Constable Chaman Lal provided the link evidence

stating that on 17.2.2000 while posted at P.S. Valotha, on that day MHC

Sukhraj Singh had handed over to him a parcel along with envelope for

6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 30-08-2018 02:18:20 :::
CRA-S-20-SB-2002 7

depositing the same with Chemical Examiner, Patiala; that the seals were

intact at that time. He deposited the same on 17.2.2000 in the intact form

and had not made any alteration or tampering till it remained in his


PW7 Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Teacher, Government Primary

School, Asauttal, Tehsil Patti had brought the record regarding the date

of birth of the prosecutrix stating that as per the record, the date of birth

of the prosecutrix was on 10.3.1993. She had proved school certificate in

that regard.

PW8 SI Gurbachan Singh had recorded the formal FIR.

PW9 MHC Sukhraj Singh, a formal witness has tendered

his affidavit Ex.PW9/A.

Report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PX goes to show that

semen was found on the salwar and in vaginal swab. That further

corroborates the prosecution case. The prosecution had successfully

proved its charge against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable

doubt. Whereas accused has failed to render a reasonable or plausible

explanation for his alleged false implication in this case. The prosecution

having been successfully proved its charge against the accused beyond a

shadow of reasonable doubt, the trial Court was justified in convicting

the accused for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him

accordingly. The accused by committing rape on an innocent female girl

of seven years causing a nightmare and horrible trauma to her, deserves

to be dealt with sternly, so as to send a signal in the society that such

type of criminal would have to face harsh punishment. I do not see any

reason to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from 10 years in any

7 of 8
30-08-2018 02:18:20 :::
CRA-S-20-SB-2002 8


The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by

the trial Court are well reasoned one, based upon proper appraisal and

appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation of law. There is no

illegality or infirmity therein. The said judgment of conviction and order

of sentence are upheld whereas appeal is found to be without any merit

and the same is dismissed accordingly.

It is stated that appellant – accused namely Harjinder Singh

Singh is on bail in terms of the orders passed by this Court. The bail

order is cancelled. He is ordered to be taken into custody and made to

undergo the remaining sentence. Necessary direction in that regard be

issued to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.

23.8.2018 JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No

8 of 8
30-08-2018 02:18:20 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation