SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sikander Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 February, 2020

CRR-777-2019 (OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRR-777-2019 (OM)

Date of Decision: 13.02.2020

Sikander Singh
…. Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab
…. Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

Present: – Mr. BS Jatana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

Custody certificate filed by learned State counsel is taken on

record. Be tagged at the appropriate place.

Through this revision, petitioner-accused has laid challenge

to judgment dated 15.02.2019 of lower Appellate Court, dismissing his

appeal thereby, affirming the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence of the trial Court dated dated 31.05.2013, whereby he was held

guilty under Section 377 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay fine of `6000/-. It was

also ordered that victim is entitled to a compensation of `5000/- under

Section 357(1) Cr.P.C., out of fine amount of `6000/-, if, realized, subject

1 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::
CRR-777-2019 (OM) -2-

to decision of revision, if any. Jagsir Singh, co-accused of petitioner who

was summoned as an additional accused by virtue of Section 319 Cr.P.C.,

acquitted of the charges framed against him.

Briefly, petitioner-Sikandar Singh, was sent to face trial in

case FIR No. 110 dated 02.09.2007, under Sections 377 and 511 IPC ,

Police Station Sadar, Mansa and charge-sheeted as such, on the

allegations that in the night of 01.09.2007, petitioner committed carnal

intercourse with complainant-Harjit Singh, after removing his pant and

underwear, taking him in school compound.

After holding trial, learned trial Court convicted and

sentenced the petitioner in the manner as narrated above, vide judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2013.

Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached Ist Appellate

Court, who after hearing both the sides, dismissed his appeal affirming

aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence, vide impugned

judgment dated 15.02.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that

life of spermatozoa is only 72 hours. The occurrence allegedly took

place in the night of 01.09.2007, whereas sample to the Forensic Science

Laboratory (FSL) was sent on 10.09.2017 i.e., after expiry of life period

of spermatozoa. Thus, link evidence was missing. Both the Courts

below failed to appreciate that as per prosecution story, petitioner

forcibly took away complainant in school compound by jumping over the

wall which is highly improbable and un-believable for the reason that it is

2 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::
CRR-777-2019 (OM) -3-

difficult to forcibly drag or take away such a fully build matured young

boy of the age of 16 years. As per prosecution story, the doctor had

sealed the swabs taken from anus of complainant with the seal having

impression ‘DKJ’, but as per FSL report, the samples received by it did

not contain aforesaid seal impression. That apart, there were major

contradictions in the statements of complainant and prosecution

witnesses, inasmuch as, the complainant in his initial statement as PW-5

testified that the shop from where he had gone to take sugar in the night

time on the alleged date, falls in between his house and the school.

Complainant did not disclose the reason for his going to school ahead of

the said shop. Contrary to it, in his subsequent statement, the

complainant made a somersault, testifying that he was caught by

petitioner before reaching the shop and was taken to school compound

forcibly. In his initial statement, complainant testified that he became

un-conscious and remained as such on the following day also, but in his

subsequent statement, he testified that he was very much conscious at the

time of alleged un-natural carnal intercourse and also thereafter. PW-2

Prem Singh father of complainant testified that they had gone to hospital

on motorcycle, whereas complainant as PW-5 testified that he had gone

to hospital on tempo, because of his inability to sit on motorcycle. Both

the Courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioner on account of

missing of link evidence and above major contradiction. In support of

his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a

judgment of Apex Court in Tameezuddin @ Tammu Vs. State of

3 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::
CRR-777-2019 (OM) -4-

(NCT) of Delhi, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 345 and of this Court in

Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2016(5) RCR (Criminal) 517.

On the other hand, learned State counsel strongly refuting

the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PW-6

Head Constable Basant Singh, carrier of samples to the FSL Authorities

specifically testified that at the time of delivery of samples to FSL, the

same were un-tampered and intact with seal bearing impressions ‘DKJ’

affixed by the doctor. Medical evidence supported the prosecution story

in its entirety.

Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival

submissions, this Court finds the instant revision completely devoid of

any merit for the reasons to follow:

No question of law much less substantial has been raised in

this revision.

This Court, while exercising its revisional powers, has very

limited jurisdiction, which can only be exercised, (i) when the Courts

below have acted beyond jurisdiction vested in them or (ii) have not

exercised the same diligently and (iii) have exercised illegally.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show

any such infirmities in the judgments of both the Courts below.

It is impossible and un-believable that a young person of the

age of 16 years would put or jeopardize his own reputation at stake, by

levelling false allegations of his carnal intercourse by the petitioner.

Rather, in such cases, the victim always tries to hide the offence

4 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::
CRR-777-2019 (OM) -5-

committed with him by someone. Considering this aspect of the matter,

when complainant-Harjit Singh, as PW-5 twice in Court repeatedly

testified against the petitioner that in the night of 01.09.2007, petitioner

had committed carnal intercourse with him, he cannot be disbelieved.

As soon as, the victim testified against the petitioner in

Court, other infirmities pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner

qua sending of samples of spermatozoa late by 9 days to the FSL by the

police, non-taking of samples of spermatozoa of the petitioner and

contradiction in the statement of complainant loses its significance,

inasmuch as, they relate to insignificant aspect of the case.

More so, the fact cannot be lost sight that the alleged

occurrence took place on 01.09.2007, whereas initial deposition of

complainant for the first time was recorded after one year i.e. in 2008 and

thereafter, for the second time in the year 2012, i.e. after around 5 years.

No body is perfect in this imperfect world. Minor contradictions relate to

insignificant aspect of the case are bound to occur in the narration of even

truthful witnesses.

The complainant in his deposition unambiguously narrated

the entire incident beyond any shadow of doubt about carnal intercourse

with him by the petitioner, testifying that before he reached the shop from

where he had to take sugar, he was caught hold by the petitioner and was

dragged/taken away to the school compound. Thereafter, making him

naked, petitioner committed un-natural carnal intercourse with him.

I have carefully gone through the judgments of both the Courts

5 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::
CRR-777-2019 (OM) -6-

below and find no illegality or perversity in the same.

The instant revision, being completely devoid of any merit, is

dismissed.

February 13, 2020 (RAMENDRA JAIN)
rishu JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

Whether Reportable Yes/No

6 of 6
01-03-2020 09:22:23 :::

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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