In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Revision No. 156 of 2002
Date of decision: March 02, 2009
Gurdev Kaur
... Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and others
... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Simsi Dhir, AAG, Punjab.
A.N. Jindal, J
Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 1.6.2001
passed by the Special Court (Additional Sessions Judge), Bathinda,
acquitting the accused-respondents Satvir Singh and Gurmail Kaur
(herein referred as ‘the respondents’) of the charges under Sections
376/506/314/34 IPC and Section 3 of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The case was registered at the instance of Gurdev Kaur
who disclosed that her husband Sangha Singh works at the brick kiln
of village Gurne Kalan and their daughter Jagjit Kaur aged about 16-17
years used to reside with them. On 20.2.1999, she had gone to see her
another daughter namely Ranjit Kaur at village Sumaon and when she
returned in the evening, she found her daughter Jagjit Kaur missing
from the house. In the meantime Gurmail Kaur, a midwife, informed
her that Jagjit Kaur is lying in her house in a serious condition. On
reaching her house, Jagjit Kaur disclosed that about two months back
Satbir Singh respondent committed rape upon her and threatened to
eliminate her and her family members in case she disclosed about the
same to them. She further told that thereafter, Satbir Singh repeatedly
raped her several times. At this, a case was registered and
investigated. On completion of the investigation, challan was
Crl. Revision No. 156 of 2002 -2-
presented in the Court.
Charges under Sections 376/506/314/34 IPC as well as
under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was framed, to which they pleaded not guilty
and opted to contest.
Evidence was led by the prosecution. However, the trial
ended in acquittal.
Though Jagjit Kaur complained about the rape committed
upon her at the hands of the respondent No.1 for several times but she
complained only on 21.2.1999 when she became pregnant. She has not
disclosed particulars of time, place and the manner when, for the first
time, the rape was committed upon her and the dates when she was
repeatedly raped. She was over 16 years of age and appears to be a
consenting party. Regarding age, Dr. Tarlok Singh (PW1) has opined her
age to be 15- ½ years to 17 years as per x-ray report. Medical opinion
further transpires that she was habitual to intercourse. The prosecution
has further failed to prove the charge under Section 314 IPC so as under
Section 506 IPC as well as 3 of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. In its elaborate judgment, the trial
court appears to have touched all the points while extending benefit of
doubt to the respondents.
Resultantly, finding no merit in this revision petition
preferred by the private party, the same is dismissed.
March 02, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge