JUDGMENT
Viney Mittal, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by
the appellant Sushil Kumar challenging the judgment dated
November 6, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Ludhiana whereby the appellant has been convicted
under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo
seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC.
The appellant has further been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 366
IPC.
2. The prosecution version is that on June 16, 1988
Roshan Lal brother of Anju Bala was asleep in his house.
His wife Sudesh Rani was also present. Around 3.00 p.m.,
Anju Bala, prosecutrix went to the house of her friend
Rubi. Earlier also she had been visiting the house of her
friend Rubi, but on that day she did not return back till
late in the evening. Roshan Lal and his family members
searched Anju Bala in the town and thereafter in the
houses of their relatives but she was not traceable.
Thereafter, Roshan Lal suspected that their neighbour
Parshotam Lal son of Hushiar Singh, who was not present in
his house, had kidnapped her. Subsequently, a wireless
message was received from the Deputy Commissioner Police
West, Delhi to the effect that the aforesaid Anju Bala
alongwith Sushil Kumar accused and Ram Dhani accused had
been arrested in connection with FIR No. 290 dated June
18, 1988 under Section 294 IPC, registered at Police
Station Rajauri Garden, Delhi. The police brought the
aforesaid Sushil Kumar to Ludhiana. He was go medically
examined. Ultimately, it was found that the aforesaid
Sushil Kumar had abducted Anju Bala who was a minor being
16 years of age and had committed rape upon her.
Accordingly, the appellant alongwith Ram Dhani was tried
under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376 IPC. After the conclusion
of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Judge
acquitted Ram Dhani but found that Sushil Kumar was guilty
of the offences for which he was charged. Accordingly, he
was convicted under Sections 366/376 IPC and sentenced as
aforesaid.
3. I have heard Shri D.S. Keer, the learned counsel
for the appellant and Shri Sandeep Jain, the learned
Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent and
with their assistance have also gone through the record.
4. In my considered opinion, the prosecution has
been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all
reasonable doubts by leading cogent evidence. Anju Bala
prosecutrix has appeared as PW4. She has given a detailed
account of her kidnapping and rape. She has specifically
stated that at the relevant time she was the student of
7th class and that accused Sushil Kumar was known to her
because he was living in a house at the back of their
house in Indra colony, Ludhiana. Whenever she would go
out of her house, the aforesaid Sushil Kumar would make
gestures to her. In fact, a bare perusal of the statement
of Anju Bala shows not only that she has supported the
prosecution version with regard to her kidnapping but also
proved the factum of she having been raped by Sushil
Kumar. The age of the prosecutrix Anju Bala stands duly
proved by the prosecution by producing her school
certificate Ex.PB on the record. In this view of the
matter, the conviction as recorded by the learned trial
Judge calls for no interference and is hereby maintained.
5. Faced with this difficulty, Shri Keer, the
learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
aforesaid occurrence had taken place in the year 1988 when
the present appellant Sushil Kumar was merely 17 years of
age. Although, Shri Keer tried to plead that there was a
consent between the parties but because of the fact that
the age of the prosecutrix Anju Bala is shown to be less
than 16 years, therefore, the aforesaid plea is not
naturally available to the learned counsel for the
appellant.
6.
Under these circumstances, Shri Keer has
submitted that a lenient view of the matter be taken. It
is also submitted by Shri Keer that the appellant has
already faced long and protracted criminal proceedings.
Even the present criminal appeal has remained pending in
this Court or a period of more than 13 years.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to
this plea of Shri Keer. In my considered opinion, the
ends of justice would be met if the sentence of rigorous
imprisonment awarded to the appellant Sushil Kumar is
reduced to two years under Section 376 IPC and 6 months
under Section 366 IPC. Both the aforesaid sentences shall
run concurrently.
8. With the aforesaid observations and
modification, the aforesaid criminal appeal stands
disposed of.