##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-S- 1956- SB-2004 Reserved on: 19.05.2026 Pronounced on: 22.07.2026 Uploaded on: 22.07.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Pronounced: NO Whether full judgment is pronounced: YES JASPAL SINGH ….Appellant Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present:- Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amritpal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab.

*****

RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Jaspal Singh, assailing the judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2004 and the order of sentence dated 31.07.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide the order of sentence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial, is that on 18.02.2004, ASI Shyam Singh (PW-8), while present along with other police officials at the bus stand of village Hukumat Singh Wala, met the prosecutrix, who made a statement before him. She alleged that on 17.02.2004 at about 8:30 a.m., she had gone, as a matter of routine, to ease herself in the fields of one Malkiat Singh, situated at a distance of about five killas from her house. According to the prosecution, the accused, who was already present there, overpowered the prosecutrix, threw her on the ground and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent, while threatening to kill her in case she raised an alarm. It was further alleged that the prosecutrix raised a hue and cry, which attracted Kuljit Singh, son of Sewak Singh, who was grazing goats in the vicinity and is stated to have witnessed the occurrence. On seeing him, the accused fled from the spot. The prosecutrix thereafter returned home and narrated the occurrence to her husband, Jagroop Singh, on his return in the evening. On the basis of her statement, FIR No. 27 dated 18.02.2004 was registered at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Ferozepur, whereupon the investigation commenced.

3. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer took into possession the wearing apparel of the prosecutrix, namely her salwar and clothes, prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, and got the prosecutrix medically examined. The accused was arrested on 19.02.2004 and was also subjected to medico-legal examination by Dr. Fakir Masih, who opined that he was capable of performing sexual intercourse. The medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix was conducted by Dr. Meena H. Singh, who proved the Medico-Legal Report (MLR) on record during the trial. Upon completion of the investigation, the police presented the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the jurisdictional Court. Finding a prima facie case, the learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. The prosecutrix entered the witness box as PW-7, while her husband, Jagroop Singh, was examined as PW-4. Dr. Meena H. Singh, who medico-legally examined the prosecutrix, appeared as PW-3, whereas Dr. Fakir Masih, who medico- legally examined the accused, was examined as PW-6. The investigation was conducted by ASI Shyam Singh, who stepped into the witness box as PW-8. Besides the oral evidence, the prosecution also tendered in evidence the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Forensic Science Laboratory, along