SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(P&H) 175

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.P.S.Sandhu, J.
Jagan Nath
Versus
State Of Haryana
Decided On : MARCH 29, 1983

The main legal point established in the judgment is that even if the prosecutrix was a consenting party, the appellants were still held criminally liable for the offenses committed against her.

Headnote:

Rape - Criminal Law - 376 IPC, 363, 368 IPC - The judgment discussed the provisions of 376 IPC, 363 IPC, and 368 IPC. The court analyzed the legal framework and its interpretation in reaching the decision.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the kidnapping and rape of a minor girl by the appellants. The prosecutrix was allegedly kidnapped, raped, and impregnated by the appellants, leading to the birth and subsequent death of a child.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that while the prosecutrix may have been a consenting party, the appellants were still held criminally liable for the offenses. Jagan Nath was acquitted due to lack of evidence, while Baij Nath's sentence under Section 376 IPC was reduced to one year.

Issues: The issues revolved around the consent of the prosecutrix, the jurisdiction of the court, and the criminal liability of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the prosecutrix may have been a consenting party, the appellants were still criminally liable. It also discussed the jurisdictional aspect of trying the offense committed in a different location.

Final Decision: Jagan Nath's appeal was allowed, and Baij Nath's appeal was dismissed with a reduction in the sentence under Section 376 IPC.

Judgment

K.P.S.Sandhu, J.

1. Jagan Nath and Baij Nath appellants stand convicted and sentenced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala, as under:

--------------------------------------------

Name of the Convicted Sentence

awarded

appellant under Section

-----------------------------------------------

Jagan Nath (i) 376 IPC R.I. for four years.

(ii) 363 read

with

368 I.P.C. R.I. for one year.

Bail Nath (i) 376 I.P.C. R.I. for four years

(ii) 363 I.P.C. R.I. for one year.

-------------------------------------------------

The sentence awarded to both the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. Their co-accused, namely Kulbhusen, who was also concicted under Section 363, I.P.C. in the same trial was given the benefit of probation under Section 360, Cr. P.C. However, he did not choose to prefer any appeal against his conviction.

2 Rajni daughter of Ram Parkash, prosecutrix was studying in Sanatan Dharam School, Ambala City, In 1979, when she was aged about 13 years, she was alleged to have been kidnapped and taken to Chandigarh by her neighbour Devinder Kumar, who also raped her there. Ram Parkash, father of the pro-secutrix brought that incident to the notice of the police but no action was taken on that report.

3. Baij Nath appellant was a tenant in a portion of the house owned and occupied by the father of the prosecutrix. Smt. Rajni prosecutrix had been visiting Baij Nath very often in his room and had been indulging in sexual intercourse with him. This process continued for quite a few months. Smt. Rajni prosecutrix even continued visiting Baij Nath appellant after he shifted to another house and had been indulging in sexual intercourse with him. Resultantly, she became pregnant. They tried for the abortion of the conceived child but in vain. Baij Nath is alleged to have suggested to the prosecutrix that he could persuade his brother Jagan Nath appellant, living in Delhi, to marry her, or that in the alternative she could accompany him to his native village Urdia. District Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh. On 5th March, 1980 Baij Nath appellant informed the prosecutrix that his brother Jagan Nath appellant was prepared to marry her. At that time Kulbhushan, the third co-accused of the appellants, was also present and joined in the deliberations.

4. On 6th March, 1980 at about 8.30 A. M. while the prosecutrix was going to take her examination for the 7th standard, she was taken to Bus Stand, Ambala Cantt. by Kulbhushan co-accused of the appellants and then taken to Delhi by Baij Nath appellant where she was kept in the house of Jagan Nath appellant. It is further alleged that at Delhi both the appellants committed rape upon her and after about a weeks time Baij Nath appellant again came back to Ambala. Jagan Nath appellant continued having sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. She was then taken by Jagan Nath appellant to his native village Urdia in Azamgarh District (U.P.) where she was kept for two-three weeks and again subjected to sexual intercourse by Jagan Nath appellant. Jagan Nath appellant then left the prosecutrix with Shrimati Gianmati, wife of Baij Nath, at village Urdia. Rajni prosecutrix gave birth to a female child on 10th May, 1980. Howevever the child expired on 11th May, 1980. Baij Nath appellant then brought her back to Delhi from Urdia. It was on or about 12 June, 1980 that Baij Nath appellant again committed sexual intercourse with her in Delhi during the night at the house of his brother Jagan Nath. Baij Nath appellant then took her to Bus Stand at Delhi and made her to board a bus for Ambala City along with a few belongings like an attache case, garments and wrist watch etc. She returned to her fathers house in Ambala on 13th June, 1980 and narrated the entire occurrence to him, who took her to the C. I. A. Staff Police, Ambala City, where a report was already lodged by Ram













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top