Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 2246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
S.S. Saron, Amol Rattan Singh, JJ.
Armin Ra @ Meena – Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab and Another – Respondents
CRA-D No. 384-DB of 2014 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-12-2015
For the Appellant :Vikas Bali, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence of 'attempt to commit a particular offence' under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, there must be evidence of the accused's intention to commit the offence and preparations towards its commission.
Headnote:
Appeal - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376, Section 511, Section 354 - The court dismissed the appeal filed by the prosecutrix-appellant against the judgment and sentence of the respondent No. 2, holding that there was no evidence to show that the respondent had the intention to commit the offence of rape or had made any preparations to do so.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix-appellant filed an appeal against the judgment and sentence of the respondent No. 2, seeking his conviction for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and enhancement of the sentence for the offence under Section 354 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to establish that the respondent had the intention to commit rape or had made preparations to do so. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and sentence of the trial court.
Issues: The issues involved the appeal were the conviction of the respondent for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and the enhancement of the sentence for the offence under Section 354 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for the offence of 'attempt to commit a particular offence' under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, there must be evidence of the accused's intention to commit the offence and preparations towards its commission. In the absence of such evidence, the appeal was dismissed.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the prosecutrix-appellant was dismissed, and the judgment and sentence of the trial court were upheld.
S.S. Saron, J.
CRM No. 7692-2014
Heard.
For the reasons, mentioned in the criminal miscellaneous application, delay of 27 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
CRM stands disposed of, accordingly.
CRA-D-384-DB-2014
This appeal has been filed by the prosecutrix-appellant against the judgment dated 28.11.2013 and order of sentence dated 29.11.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby Paramjit Singh (respondent No. 2) has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short--'IPC'). He has, however, been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. For the said offence under Section 354 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, besides, pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The appellant-prosecutrix prays that her appeal be accepted with costs and Paramjit Singh (respondent No. 2) be convicted and punished of all the charges framed against him; i.e. he be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and the sentence of two years awarded for the offence under Section 354 IPC being inadequate, be enhanced.
3. During the course of hearing, it is accepted by learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence that has been imposed upon Paramjit Singh (respondent No. 2) for the offence under Section 354 IPC is not to be enhanced on an appeal filed by the 'victim' in terms of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short -- 'Cr.PC'). The said proviso gives a right to a 'victim' to file an appeal against an order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting him for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. It does not provide for an appeal against inadequate sentence.
4. In the circumstances, learned counsel does not press the prayer for enhancement of sentence that has been imposed in respect of the offence under Section 354 IPC. He, however, submits that Paramjit Singh (respondent No. 2) has wrongly been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC for which he is liable to be convicted and sentenced.
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.
6. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of the appellant/complainant made before ASI Manjit Singh on 08.01.2012. The complainant alleged that about 15 days earlier to the incident that had occurred on 07.01.2012 she and her husband had taken a house at Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana on rent from Paramjit Singh (respondent No. 2). The appellant was alone at her house on 07.01.2012 at about 4:30 p.m. Her husband had gone out for work. Paramjit Singh (respondent No. 2) used to visit their house daily. On the said day and time, Paramjit Singh (respondent No. 2) straightaway entered the last room of the house of the complainant/appellant. On seeing her alone in the house, he bolted the room from inside and started troubling her. He offered to give the complainant Rs. 50,000/- and also get the house registered in her name. The appellant protested and he (respondent No. 2) tried to pull the string of her 'salwar', on which she raised an alarm and assaulted him with a 'Thapi' on his head. According to the appellant, Paramjit Singh (respondent No. 2) tried to commit rape upon her. People gathered at the spot and her husband also came there. The people took Paramjit Singh (respondent No. 2) to the hospital for treatment.
7. On the statement of the complainant offences under Sections 354 and 376 IPC were found to be made out for which the FIR was registered.
8. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record, concluded that as per the version of the prosecutrix with regard to the act of Paramamjit Singh (respondent No. 2) for attempting to commit rape upon her that it had come on record that resp
