Back
2009 Supreme(P&H) 565
2010(6) RCR(Cri) 819
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SHAM SUNDER, J
Rajesh S/o Lal Chand
Jitender S/o Beg Raj - Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 260-SB of 1994
Decided on : 24.03.2009
For the Appellants :Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.S. Sullar, DAG, Haryana.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Juvenile Justice Act to determine the sentence for accused below 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence.
Headnote:
U/S.376(2) IPC - Rape - U/S 366 IPC - Kidnapping - [U/S.376(2) IPC, U/S 366 IPC] - The court upheld the conviction of the accused for rape and kidnapping. The accused were found guilty based on the prosecutrix's testimony, medical evidence, and forensic report. The court also ruled that the accused, being below 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence, were entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, and their sentence was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix, a minor, was forcibly taken to a field and raped by the accused. She reported the incident to her family, and the accused were arrested and charged under Sections 366 and 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of rape and kidnapping based on the prosecutrix's testimony, medical evidence, and forensic report. The court also ruled that the accused, being below 18 years of age at the time of the occurrence, were entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, and their sentence was set aside.
Issues: The main issues were the age of the prosecutrix and the accused, the credibility of the prosecutrix's testimony, and the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the prosecutrix's testimony, medical evidence, and forensic report to establish the guilt of the accused. Additionally, the court applied the Juvenile Justice Act to set aside the sentence of the accused due to their age at the time of the occurrence.
Final Decision: The court partly accepted the appeal, upheld the conviction, set aside the sentence, and directed the accused to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders.
Sham Sunder, J
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 21.03.1994, and the order of sentence dated 24.03.1994, rendered by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, vide which it convicted Rajesh and Jitender, accused, (now appellants ), as under :-
Names of the The offence for Sentence awarded
accused (now which conviction
appellants) was recorded.
Rajesh and U/S.376(2) IPC Rigorous imprisonment
Jitender for ten years each.
alias Phirya Fine of Rs.500/-
each. In default of
payment of fine to
undergo rigorous
imprisonment for
three months each.
Rajesh and U/S 366 IPC Rigorous imprisonment
Jitender for four years each.
alias Phirya Fine of Rs.250/-each. In default of payment
of fine to undergo
rigorous imprisonment
for 1-1/2 months each.
The substantive sentences of the accused were ordered to run concurrently. The trial Court also convicted Ram Singh, accused, for the aforesaid offence, who is not an appellant in this appeal.
2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 24.09.1992, the prosecutrix (the name is not being mentioned in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court), aged about 13/14 years, daughter of Shyam Lal, had gone to the fields to ease herself at about 7.00 PM.When she was returning to her house, Ram Singh, Rajesh and Jitender @ Phirya, accused met her on the way. Rajesh alias Phirya and Ram Singh, accused, caught hold her of her hands. Jitender alias Phirya gagged her mouth and she was forcibly taken to a place behind Devi Mandir. The accused threatened to kill her, if she raised alarm. The prosecutrix was taken to the Bajra (Fodder) field. Rajesh, accused broke the string of trouser (salwar) of the prosecutrix and committed rape with her. Thereafter, Ram Singh and Jitender alias Phirya, accused, committed rape with her. All the accused confined the prosecutrix, at that place, and had been continuously committing rape with her one by one. At about 5.00 AM, on 25.09.1992, the accused left the prosecutrix near Shanti Cinema, Kalanaur, and ran away. The prosecutrix came to her house, and narrated the occurrence, to her mother Phulpati. At that time, Shyam Lal, and Bobby, father and brother respectively of the prosecutrix, were not available in the house. The father of the prosecutrix had gone to village Bahman, in connection with some family affairs,whereas Bobby, her brother, was away to Bhiwani. Her father Shyam Lal came back on 26.09.1992, to his house, from village Bahmanwas. He was told by the prosecutrix and her mother about the occurrence.Thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police. The statement Ex.PF of the prosecutrix was recorded, which was signed by her. Gurbachan Singh, Sub Inspector/Station House Officer appended his endorsement Ex.PF/1,thereon,and the FIR Ex.PF/2 was registered. The prosecutrix was got medicolegally examined. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence, and prepared the site plan Ex.PU. After the medicolegal examination of the prosecutrix, the doctor handed over to the Police a sealed parcel, containing her clothes and an envelope alongwith another sealed parcel of swabs. The same were taken into possession, vide recovery memo Ex.PV. The accused were arrested on 25.09.1992, and were got medicolegally examined. School leaving certificate Ex.PT of the prosecutrix showing her date of birth as 18.07.1979, was taken into possession by the Police. Another certificate Ex.PG mentioning the date of birth of the prosecutrix, as 18.07.1979, and issued by the Registrar, Births and Deaths, Kalanaur (Rohtak), was also taken into possession. Scaled site plan Ex.PA, was got prepared, from Satpal Singh, Patwari. Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was obtained. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned.
3. On their appearance, in the Committing Court,the accused were supplied the copies of all the documents,relied upon by the prosecution. After th
