IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRA-S-2504-SB-2004 JOGA SINGH ETC.

.....Appellants Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ETC.

.....Respondents (2) CRA-D-846-DBA-2005 GURJIT KAUR .....Appellant Versus GURMEJ KAUR .....Respondent Date of decision: August 28, 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. GREWAL Present: Ms. Dheerja, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Aarav Gupta, Advocate (Amicus Curiae)

for the respondent.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

1. These two appeals, being inter-connected, arise out of the same judgment dated 23.11.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur. They are, therefore, being disposed of together vide this common judgment.

2. The first appeal (CRA-S-2504-SB-2004) is filed by the convicted accused namely Joga Singh and his father Jhanga Singh, assailing their conviction under Section 376 IPC, whereby they were sentenced as follows:-

Name of the Offence Period of Fine Period of sentence accused under Sentence imposed in default of Section payment of fine Joga Singh 376(g) IPC RI for 10 Rs.5,000/- RI for 1 year and 6 years months Jhanga Singh 376(g) IPC RI for 10 Rs.5,000/- RI for 1 year and 6 years months

3. The second appeal (CRA-D-846-DBA-2005) is by the prosecutrix, assailing the acquittal of accused No.3 Gurmej Kaur @ Gejo.

4. For reasons which we elaborate hereinafter, the appeal filed by the convicted accused is found to have substance, and is accordingly allowed, resulting in their acquittal. Conversely, the appeal by the prosecutrix is found devoid of merit and stands dismissed.

PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

5. The case of the prosecution, originating in a private complaint (Ex.P1) lodged by XXX (PW1) may be summarized thus:-



The prosecutrix, who had acted as a mediator in the marriage of Joga Singh, alleged that on 21.08.2002, she was persuaded by accused No.3 Gurmej Kaur @ Gejo to visit their house on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan to tie rakhi to Joga Singh. Upon her arrival, it was alleged that Joga Singh offered her water and later tea, which was laced with intoxicant. After she became semi-conscious, Joga Singh is alleged to have committed rape upon her, followed by his father Jhanga Singh.



When she complained of abdominal pain, both the accused are said to have taken her to a private doctor (Deep) at Mallanwala, who administered a drip and discharged her the next day. On returning home, she claims to have narrated the incident to her father and husband. When no action was forthcoming from the police despite her application to higher authorities (Ex.D1), and when Kalandra entry under Section 182 IPC (Ex.D2) was instead prepared against her, she filed the private complaint.

6. The learned Sessions Court convicted Joga Singh and Jhanga Singh under Section 376 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment with a fine. Accused Gurmej Kaur @ Gejo was acquitted for want of sufficient evidence.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CONVICTED APPELLANTS (JOGA SINGH AND JHANGA SINGH)

7. Learned counsel vehemently advanced the following submissions:-

I. Inherent improbability:

The narrative that a married woman would, in the evening, visit the house of one, who was not her brother, merely to tie rakhi, and would then be raped sequentially by both son and father in the same premises without anyone noticing, is inherently improbable and contrary to ordinary human conduct.

II. Unexplained delay:

The complaint was lodged after a delay of 1 month and 18 days.

Such a long delay coupled with the defence inference arising from Section 182 IPC Kalandra (Ex.D2), renders the complaint suspect.

III. Absence of Medical Evidence:

No medical examination was even conducted; the private Doctor named was not examined; there is no chemical report to establish intoxication. In a case hinging upon allegations of intoxication and rape, such absence is fatal.

IV. Non-Examination of Material Witnesses:

The father and husband of the prosecutrix, the very