Honble GARG, J.–The above-named accused appellant has preferred this appeal from Jail against the judgment and order dated 21.8.1999 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Court, Sri Ganganagar, in Sessions Case No. 16/98 by which he convicted the accused appellant for the offence u/S. 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to 7 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2, 000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 6 months R.I.

Note:-That since this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant, Satpal alias Satnam Singh, from Jail and he was not represented by any counsel, therefore, Shri D.K. Gaur, Advocate, was appointed by this Court as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and argue this appeal on behalf of the accused appellant.

(2). It arises in the following circumstances:-

P.W. 2 Mukhtiyar Singh lodged a report Ex.P./4 in the Police Station Gharsana district Sri Ganganagar on 9.9.1997 before the P.W. 8 Jeewan Ram, S.H.O. Police Station Gharsana stating inter-alia that he and his son Sukhvinder Singh and brother Sucha Singh went to Baba Ram Deo Mela on 31.8.1997, and when they were there, his younger brother Sukh Deo Singh, PW 4 came there and informed that in the evening of 4.9.1997 at about 5.30 P.M. when his daughter P.W.1 Baljeet Kaur was cutting grass in the field, accused appellant came there and cought-hold her hands and put her on the ground and after pressing her mouth, he opened the nada of her salwar and committed rape on her. When P.W.1 Baljeet Kaur cried, P.W.4, Sukh Deo Singh, younger brother of PW 2 Mukhtiyar Singh and Bhabhee of P.W.2 Mukhtiyar Singh reached on the spot and on seeing them, the accused appellant ran away. It is further stated by P.W. 2 Mukhtiyar Singh in his report that he reached at his house on 8.9.1997 and thereafter he was also informed about the incident by his daughter P.W. 1 Baljeet Kaur and wife P.W. 3 Balvinder Kaur and then, the report has been lodged.

On this report, the police registered a case and chalked out the FIR and started investigation. During investigation, Site-plan Ex. P.1 was prepared and Salwar was seized through Ex.P.2 and some pieces of broken bangles were also seized through Ex. P.3 and accused appellant was medically examined and his Medical Report is Ex.P.7 regarding potency. PW 1 Baljeet Kaur was also medically examined by P.W. 9 Dr. Chandra Bhan Middha and her Medical Report is Ex. P. 13. After usual investigation, a challan was filed against the accused appellant for the offence u/Sec. 376 I.P.C. in the Court of Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of Session.

The learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar, vide his order dated 31.3.1998 framed charge for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. against the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited some documents and thereafter, the statement of accused appellant u/S. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.

After completion of trial, the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Sri Ganganagar vide his judgment and order dated 21.8.1999 convicted the accused appellant u/S. 376 I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above, holding inter-alia:-

1. That accused appellant has committed the offence u/S. 376 I.P.C.

2. That if some infirmities are found in the investigation of the police, in such case, doubt should not be created on the statement of the prosecutrix, PW 1 Baljeet Kaur.

3. That argument that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in this case because of the enmity between P.W. 2 Mukhtiyar Singh and the accused appellant Satpal, is not tenable.

Aggrieved from the said Judgment and order dated 21.8.1999 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar, this appeal has been preferred by the accused appellant from Jail.

(3). In this appeal, the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document