CRA-S-20-SB-2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRA-S-20-SB-2002
Date of decision:-23.8.2018
Harjinder Singh
….Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
….Respondent
CORAM : HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN
Present : Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Dhruv Dayal, Sr.D.A.G., Punjab.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.
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
case.
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 6development. On physical examination.
(1) Salwar bearing stain mark.
(2) An abrasion 0.5 cm x 0.25 cm on the left gluteal
region.
(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
custody.
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
manner.
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.
(H.S.MADAAN)
23.8.2018 JUDGE
Brij
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
30-08-2018 02:18:20 :::
