IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1169 SB OF 2003

DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 22, 2007

Balkar Singh

.....Appellant

VERSUS

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRESENT:

Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab,

for the State.

****

RANJIT SINGH, J.

Appellant Balkar Singh is accused of raping Santosh Rani, a

mentally retarded lady. The appellant could succeed in his adventure due to his

proximity with the brother of the prosecutrix. He was statedly working with the

brother of the prosecutrix as a helper cook/Halwai at marriage functions.

On 16.10.2002, the appellant went to the house of the prosecutrix

and told her that her brother has rented a room in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar

and she was to accompany him to the room. After speaking to her brother,

retarded lady, in all her innocence, accompanied the complainant. He took her

to his room instead. There he forcibly undressed the prosecutrix by removing

her salwar and committed sexual intercourse with her by putting her on a cot.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1169 SB OF 2003 :{ 2 }:

After committing the act, the appellant threatened the prosecutrix to

kill if she disclosed this fact to any one. Saying so, he left her telling

that he was going to sleep at Cremation Ground. On reaching her

home, the prosecutrix narrated this incident to her brother, Surinder

Mohan and his wife, Prem Rani. Her younger brother, Ravinder

Mohan also reached the place and the incident was also brought to

his notice. Surinder Mohan and Ravinder Mohan, both brothers of

the prosecutrix, then went to look for the appellant and ultimately

found him sleeping in the Cremation Ground. He was, thus,

apprehended by police and charged with the offences under Sections

376, 366, 506 IPC. On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution,

which mainly was that of the prosecutrix, her brothers and doctors,

which conducted the medical examination, the appellant was

sentenced to suffer RI for five years coupled with fine of Rs.500/- for

an offence under Section 366 IPC. In addition, he was directed to

undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.700/- for his conviction

for an offence under Section 376 IPC. He has filed this appeal.

This appeal was filed through jail and was admitted on

17.7.2003. When this appeal came up for hearing on 10.10.2007, it

was found that the appellant was not represented by any counsel.

To give him fair opportunity, Mr.Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, of this

Court was requested to assist the Court as Amicus-curiae. He

agreed to do so and accordingly the appeal is heard today.

Learned Amicus-curiae had a difficult task at hand in view

of the over-whelming evidence on record but still he has made efforts

to do his best. He ofcourse is to assist the Court. He says that there

is no external or internal injuries on the body of the prosecutrix, which

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1169 SB OF 2003 :{ 3 }:

could have positively proved the allegation of forcible sexual assault

made by the appellant. Absence of any injury, according to him, is an

indication of either no intercourse or atleast it being not against the

will etc. The counsel perhaps forgot that lady is mentally retarded

and this aspect would not be of much significance. Learned State

counsel, on the other hand, has drawn my attention to the evidence

to indicate that the case of prosecution is well supported by the

evidence of the prosecutrix, which is duly corroborated by witnesses

including the medical evidence.

I have gone through the evidence. The prosecutrix has

given categorical version indicating the manner in which she was

taken from he