Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995
Date of Decision : 4.11.2008
Jarnail Singh S/o Nathi Ram ...Appellant
R/o Jathlana.
Versus
The State of Haryana ....Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present: Mr. R.S.Mamli, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. A.K.Jindal, AAG, Haryana,
for the respondent.
SHAM SUNDER, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated
14.3.1995, and the order of sentence dated 15.3.1995, rendered by the
Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagadhri, vide which it convicted the
accused (now appellant), and sentenced him as under :
Name of the accused Offence for which Sentence Awarded
(now appellant) convicted
Jarnail Singh 376(g) IPC RI for 10 years, and to
pay a fine of Rs.200/-,
in default of payment
of fine, to undergo
another RI for 3
months.
366 IPC RI for 7 years, and to
pay a fine of Rs.150/-,
in default of payment
of fine, to undergo
another RI for 3
months
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 2
Name of the accused Offence for which Sentence Awarded
(now appellant) convicted
120-B IPC RI for 7 years, and to
pay a fine of RS.150/-,
in default of payment
of fine, to undergo
another RI for 3
months.
However, all the substantive sentences, were ordered to run
concurrently. Nanu, co-accused, was, however, declared proclaimed
offender.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Jagdish Chander, father of the
prosecutrix, and the complainant, is a resident of Village Jathlana, and is
a labourer. He has got two daughters, and three sons. His elder daughter
(the prosecutrix), was aged about 16 years, at the relevant time. On
25.3.1993, as usual, Jagdish Chander went to sleep, in his drawing room,
at about 10.00 PM. His wife Savitri Devi, alongwith the prosecutrix, and
other children, went to sleep in the house. On 26.3.1993, at about 6.00
AM, his wife told him, that the prosecutrix was missing, from the house,
on the night intervening 25/26.3.1993. Jarnail Singh, accused, was also
found missing. The complainant expressed his suspicion, against Jarnail
Singh, accused. He made a complaint, when the prosecutrix could not be
traced, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered.
3. On 29.3.1993, the prosecutrix was recovered, from the custody
of the accused, from the house of Shashi Bhan. She was brought back.
The accused was arrested. The prosecutrix, and the accused were got
medico-legally examined. The statement of the prosecutrix, under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., was also recorded by the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Jagadhri. After the completion of investigation, the accused
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 3
were challaned.
3. On his appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate,
the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to
the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of
Sessions, charge under Sections 376, 366 and 120-B IPC, was framed
against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Dr. Kanta
Dhankar (PW-1), Dr. Satnam Singh (PW-2), Moti Ram (PW-3), Satpal
(PW-4), Tara Chand (PW-5), the prosecutrix (PW-6), O.P.Verma, JMIC,
(PW-7), Jagdish Chander, father of the prosecutrix, (PW-8), and Sadhu
Ram, SI (PW-9). Thereafter, the Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State,
closed the prosecution evidence.
5. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was
recorded, and he was put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing
against him, in the prosecution evidence. He pleaded false implication.
It was stated by him, that due to party faction, in the village, he was
falsely involved, in this case. He, however, did not lead any evidence, in
his defence.
6. After hearing the Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, the
Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, on record,
the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated
hereinbefore.
7. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the
order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed
by the appellant.
8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, and have gone
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 4
through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
9. It is settled principle of Criminal jurisprudence, that the
prosecution, is required to prove its case, against the accused, beyond a
reasonable doubt. The Court is not required to act on mere suspicion,
conjectures or surmises or suspicious circumstances, to bring home the
guilt to the accused. Reasonable doubt should not be stretched too far, to
suspect everything so as to defeat the ends of justice. In Gurbachan
Singh vs. Sat Pal AIR 1990 Supreme Court 209, the principle of law,
laid down, was to the effect, that reasonable doubt, is simply that degree
of doubt, which could permit a reasonable and just man to come to a
conclusion. Reasonableness of the doubt must be commensurate with the
nature of offence to be investigated. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of
benefit of doubt, must not nurture fanciful doubts, and lingering
suspicions and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made
sterile, on the plea, that it is better to let hundred guilty escape, than
punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to
law. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 Supreme
Court 1998, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that it is
necessary to remember that a judge does not preside over a criminal trial
merely to see, that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to
see that guilty man does not escape. One is as important, as the other.
Both are public duties, which the Judge has to perform.
10. Before touching the merits of the case, in the light of the
evidence, on record, in the first instance, it must be stated, as to what
approach, the Court should adopt, while evaluating the prosecution
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 5
evidence, particularly the evidence of the prosecutrix, in sex related
offence. Is it essential that the evidence of the prosecutrix should be
corroborated in material particulars, before the Court bases a conviction
on her testimony? Does the rule of prudence demand that in all cases save
the rarest of rare, the Court should look for corroboration before acting
on the evidence of the prosecutrix? Let us see, if the Evidence Act,
provides the clue to this riddle. Under the Evidence Act, evidence means
and includes all statements, which the Court permits or requires to be
made before it, by the witnesses, in relation to the matters of fact, under
inquiry. Under Section 59 of the Evidence Act, all facts, except the
contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. Section 118 then
illustrates, as to who may give oral evidence. According to that Section,
all persons are competent to testify, unless the Court considers that they
are prevented from understanding the questions, put to them, or from
giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old
age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same
kind. Even, in the case of an accomplice, Section 133 provides that
he/she shall be a competent witness, against an accused person, and the
conviction is not illegal, merely because it proceeds upon the
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. However, illustration (b) to
Section 114, which lays down a rule of practice, says that the Court may
presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is
corroborated, in material particulars. Thus, under Section 133, which
lays down a rule of law, an accomplice is a competent witness, and the
conviction based solely on his uncorroborated evidence, is not illegal,
although in view of Section 114 illustration (b), the Courts do not, as a
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 6
matter of practice, do so, and look for corroboration, in material
particulars. This is the conjoint effect of Sections 133 and 114 illustration
(b).
10-A. In State of Maharashtra vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand
Jain with Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Chandraprakash
Kewalchand Jain & Anr. 1990(2) Chandigarh, Law Reporter 228
(SC), it was held as under:-
“A prosecutrix of a sex-offence cannot be on par
with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the
crime. The evidence Act nowhere says that her
evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated
in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a
competent witness under Section 118 and her
evidence must receive the same weight as it attached
to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same
degree of care and caution must atach in the
evaluation of her evidence, as in the case of an
injured complainant or witness and no more. What
is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and
conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the
evidence of a person, who is interested in the
outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the Court
keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act
on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of
law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act,
similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 7required it to look for corroboration. If for the same
reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance
on the testimony of the prosecutrix, it may look for
evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony
short of corroboration required in the case of an
accomplice. The nature of evidence to lend
assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must
necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full
understanding the Court is entitled to base a
conviction on her evidence unless the same is
shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the
totality of the circumstances appearing on the record
of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not
have a strong motive to falsely involve the person
charged, the Court should ordinarily have no
hesitation, in accepting her evidence. We have,
therefore, no doubt, in our minds, that ordinarily the
evidence of a prosecutrix who does not lack
understanding must be accepted. The degree of proof
required must not be higher than is expected of an
injured witness. For the above reasons we think that
exception has rightly been taken to the approach of
the High Court as is reflected in the following
passage:-
“It is only, in the rarest of rare cases if the
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 8Court finds that the testimony of the
prosecutrix is so trustworthy truthful and
reliable that other corroboration may not be
necessary.”
With respect, the law is not correctly stated. If we
may say so, it is just the reverse. Ordinarily, the
evidence of prosecutrix, must carry the same weight
as is attached to an injured person, who is a victim
of violence, unless there are special circumstances
which call for greater caution, in which case it
would be safe to act on her testimony, if there is
independent evidence lending assurance to her
accusation.
We think it proper, having regard to the
increase in the number of sex-violation cases in the
recent past, particularly cases of molestation and
rape in custody, to remove the notion, if it persists,
that the testimony of a woman who is a victim of
sexual violence must ordinarily be corroborated in
material particulars, except in the rarest of rare
cases. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest
of rare cases is to equate a woman who is a victim of
the lust of another with an accomplice to crime and
thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding
insult to injury to tell a woman that her story of woe
would not be believed unless it is corroborated in
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 9material particulars in the case of an accomplice to a
crime. Ours is a conservative society where it
concerns sexual behaviour. Ours is not a permissive
society as in some of the Western and European
countries. Our standard of decency and morality in
public life is not the same as in those countries. It is,
however, evident that respect for womanhood, in
our country is on active and cases of molestation
and rape are steadily growing. Indian woman is now
required to suffer indignities in different forms.
From lewd remarks to eve-teasing, from molestation
to rape. Decency and morality in public life can be
promoted and protected only if we deal strictly
with those, who violate the social norms. The
standard of proof to be required by the Court in such
cases, must take into account the fact that such
crimes are generally committed on the sly and very
rarely direct evidence of a person other than the
prosecutrix is available. Courts must also realise
that ordinarily woman, more so a young girl, will
not stake her reputation by levelling a false charge
concerning her chastity.
It is time to recall the observation of this
Court made not so far back in Bhaiwaca Bhognibhai
Hirjinbhai:-
In the Indian setting refusal to act on
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 10the testimony of a victim of sexual
assault in the absence of
corroboration as a rule, is a doing
insult to injury. Why should the
evidence of the girl or the woman
who complains of rape or sexual
molestation be viewed with the aid
of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged
with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?
To do so is to justify the charge of
male chauvinism in a male
dominated society. We must analyse
the argument in support of the need
for corroboration and subject it to
relentless and remorseless cross-
examination. And we must do so
with a logical, and not an
opinionated eye in the light of
probabilities with our feet firmly
planted on the soil of India and with
our eyes focussed on the Indian
horizon. We must not be swept off
the feet by the approach, made in the
Western world which has its own
social milieu , its own permissive
values, and its own code of life.
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 11Corroboration may, be considered
essential to establish a sexual offence
in the backdrop of the social ecology
of the Western World. It is wholly
unnecessary to import the said
concept on a turn-Key basis and to
transplant it on the Indian soil
regardless of the altogether different
atmosphere, attitudes, mores,
responses of the Indian Society and
its profile. The identities of the two
worlds are different. The solution of
problems therefore, cannot be
identical.
Further this Court said;
Without the fear of making two wide
a statement or of over-stating the
case it can be said that rarely will a
girl or a woman in India false
allegations of sexual assault…. The
statement is generally true in the
context of the urban as also rural
society. It is also by the and large
true in the context of the
sophisticated, not so sophisticated,
and unsophisticated society. Only
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 12very rarely can one conceivably
come across an exception or to and
that too possibly from amongst the
urban elites. Because (1). A girl or a
woman in the tradition bound non-
permissive society of India would be
extremely reluctant even to admit
that any incident which is likely to
reflect on her chastity had ever
occurred. (2) She would be
conscious of the danger of being
ostracised by the society or being
looked down by the society including
by her own family members,
relatives, friends and neighbours. (3)
She would have to brave the whole
world. (4) She would have to brave
the whole world. (4) she would face
the risk of losing the love and respect
of her own husband and near
relatives, and of her matrimonial
home and happiness being shattered.
(5) If she is unmarried she would
apprehend that it would be difficult
to secure an alliance with a suitable
match from a respectable or an
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 13acceptable family. (6) It would
almost inevitably and almost
invariably result in mental torture
and suffering to herself. (7) The fear
of being taunted by others will
always haunt her. (8) She would feel
extremely embarrassed in relating the
incident to others being over
powered by a feeling of shame on
account of the upbringing in a
tradition bound society whereby and
large sex is taboo. (9) The natural
inclination would be to avoid giving
publicity to the incident lest the
family name and family honour is
brought into controversy. (10) The
parents of an unmarried girl as also
the husband and members of the
husband’s family of a married woman
would also more often than not, want
to avoid publicity on account of the
fear of social stigma on the family
name and family honour. (11) The
fear of the victim herself being
considered to the promiscuous or in
some way responsible for the
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 14incident regardless of her innocence.
(12) The reluctance to face
interrogation by investigating
agency, to face the Court to face the
cross-examination, by Counsel for
the culprit, and the risk of being
disbelieved, acts as a deterrent.
11. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, now let us see, as to
whether, the prosecution was able to successfully prove, that the accused
committed rape with the prosecutrix, beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.
The brief narration of the evidence produced by the prosecution is, thus,
required to be made. The prosecutrix, appeared as PW-6. She stated that
on 9.11.1994, the date on which she deposed in the Court, she was aged
about 17 years. It was stated by her, that on 25.3.1993, at about 11.00
PM, she came outside the house for urination, in the street. Jarnail Singh,
and three other persons came, picked her up, and took her away to the
fields, from the street. Thereafter, she was taken away, in a tanker,
towards Raipur side in Uttar Pradesh. She further stated that Jarnail
Singh, and his companions, committed rape with her. On 26.3.1993, she
was recovered from Raipur, by the Police, from the custody of the
accused. At that time, Moti Ram, Omi Lal, her uncle, and Jagmal were
with the Police. She was put such questions, as are put, during the course
of examination, by the Public Prosecutor for the State, with the
permission of the Court, as she was making statement, contradictory to
the one, made by her earlier. During the course of such cross-
examination, she admitted that allurement was given by the accused, to
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 15
her. She also admitted that she was taken to Raipur, and was kept in the
house of Shashi Bhan. Jagdish Chander, father of the prosecutrix
(PW-8), proved the application, Ex.PO, moved by him, to the Police, on
the basis whereof, FIR was recorded. He also supported the statement of
the prosecutrix, to a large extent. The statement of the prosecutrix, was
duly corroborated by Dr. Kanta Dhankar (PW-1), who medico-legally
examined her on 29.3.1993, at 3.00 PM. She stated that no blood or
seminal stain, was seen with naked eye examination. The pubic hair were
present, with no blood, or seminal stain. No mark of injury was seen, on
external genitalia or vagina. She found hymen of the prosecutrix
ruptured, and vagina admitting two three fingers easily. The clothes of
the prosecutrix, as also swabs and pubic hair, were sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory, to find out, as to whether, there was any semen, and
blood stain, thereon. It is evident from, Ex.PL, report of the Forensic
Science Laboratory, that human semen was detected on trouser (salwar),
pubic hair, and under-wear of the prosecutrix. The trouser was also found
stained with a few medium and small blod stains. From, Ex.PL/1, the
report of the Serologist, it was found that the origin of blood on the
trouser (salwar) of the prosecutrix, was human. The statement of Dr.
Kanta Dhankar (PW-1), therefore, corroborated the ocular version of the
prosecutrix, that the rape was committed with her. The prosecutrix, and
Jagdish Chander, her father, were thoroughly cross-examined, but
nothing of consequence, could be got elicited from their mouth, which
may go to discredit their evidence. They stood the test of touch-stone of
all probabilities, during the course of their cross-examination. No doubt,
some minor discrepancies, and contradictions, occurred in their
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 16
statements, but the same did not affect the merits of the case, as they in
one voice deposed with regard to the occurrence. Even otherwise, there
was no reason, on the part of the prosecutrix, and her father, to depose
falsely. The prosecutrix at the relevant time, was below 16 years of age,
as would be duly discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. Before lodging
the report, she and her parents must have thought 100 times, as the
honour of an unmarried minor girl was involved. They must have
thought that if the allegations, were proved to be false, then the
prosecutrix, as also her entire family, shall be looked down upon in the
society. They must have thought, in that event, they will be ostracized
from the society. They must have also given a thought to the factum, that,
in case, the allegations were found to be untrue, then the chances of the
marriage of the prosecutrix, would be very bleak. No minor unmarried
girl, would stake her honour, by making false allegations, against the
accused, that he committed rape with her. The evidence of the
prosecutrix, duly corroborated by Jagdish Chander, her father, and Dr.
Kanta Dhankar, as also the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory,
was rightly held to be cogent, convincing, reliable, and trustworthy, by
the trial Court. On indepth scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, this Court also comes to the same conclusion. The trial Court
was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the accused committed
rape with the prosecutrix.
12. The next question, that arises for consideration, is as to what
was the age of the prosecutrix, at the time of occurrence. Ex.PG, is the
School Leaving Certificate, of the prosecutrix. This certificate, was
proved by Satpal, Headmaster, Government High School, Jathlana. He
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 17
stated that, as per the record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix, is
15.5.1977. This certificate was prepared, on the basis of the record,
maintained by the officials of the School, in the due discharge of their
official duties. This certificate, therefore, carried a presumption of
correctness. No evidence was led to prove that this certificate was, in any
way, incorrect. Even further corroboration to this certificate, was
provided from the medico-legal report, wherein the age of the prosecutrix
was written as 15 years. Even the prosecutrix, when she deposed in the
Court, in the year 1994, stated her age as 16/17 years. In the absence of
any other documentary evidence, to the contrary, the certificate Ex.PG,
could be said to be conclusive, to prove the age of the prosecutrix. Even
if, it is taken that the occular evidence is contradictory, with regard to the
age of the prosecutrix, that hardly matters, in the face of the certificate,
Ex.PG. Since, the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age, when she was
kidnapped from the lawful guardianship of her parents, with an intent to
force her to sexual intercourse, the consent or no consent of the
prosecutrix was of no significance.
13. The Counsel for the appellant, however, submitted that no
offence, punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, was made out,
and, as such, the trial Court, was wrong in recording conviction, of the
accused, for that offence. The submission of the Counsel for the
appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct. The prosecutrix,
in clear-cut terms, in her statement, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., as also in
her statement, made in the Court, stated that the accused alongwith his
three companions, forcibly took her away, and committed rape with her.
Nanu Ram, one of the accused, has already been declared Proclaimed
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 18
Offender, as is evident from the record. It means that there was more
than one person, who committed rape with the prosecutrix. Not only this,
for attracting the provisions of Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC, it is not
necessary that all the accused, should commit rape with the prosecutrix.
Even if, one accused commits rape with the prosecutrix, and the others
just stand by, they can also be held liable, for the offence, punishable
under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. The trial Court was, thus, right in
recording conviction, under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC. The
submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must
fail, and the same stands rejected.
14. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the
prosecurtix remained with the accused for 4 days. He further submitted
that it, therefore, could be said to be a case of consent. The submission of
the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, does not appear to be correct.
It has been held above, that the age of the prosecutrix, at the time of
occurrence, was below 16 years. She was, thus, minor. Under these
circumstances, her consent or no consent was hardly of any consequence.
Even if, it is assumed that she was above 16 years of age, the mere fact
that the accused after alluring her took her away, to some other place, and
he alongwith his co-accused, committed rape with her, did not mean that
the prosecutrix was a consenting party. Even, no such plea was taken up
by the accused, in his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Under these
circumstances, he cannot set up the plea of consent, at this belated stage.
The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit,
must fail, and the same stands rejected.
15. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 19
prosecutrix, made three contradictory statements. He further submitted
that since, she made shifting statements, no reliance could be placed, on
the same. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard,
does not appear to be correct. The prosecutrix, in her statement, under
Section 164 Cr.P.C., as also in her statement, in the Court, in clear-cut
terms, stated that Jarnail Singh, accused, and his companions committed
rape with her. No doubt, there are certain contradictions, in her
statement, made in the Court, viz-a-viz her statement, under Section 164
Cr.P.C., with regard to the minor details, relating to ancillary matters.
The evidence of the prosecutrix, with regard to the subtratum of the case,
is not contradictory, in any manner. If, on certain points, which were
insignificant and irrelevant, her statements were contradictory, that did
not affect the very fabric of the case. The submission of the Counsel for
the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands
rejected.
16. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that
Jagdish Chander, (PW-8), father of the prosecutrix, in his statement,
before the Police, on the basis whereof, the FIR was registered, stated that
his daughter took away Rs.3000/-. He further submitted that, under these
circumstances, it could be said that the prosecutrix herself accompanied
Jarnail Singh, accused. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant,
in this regard, does not appear to be correct. During the course of cross-
examination, it was stated by Jagdish Chander, that it was wrong to
suggest that her daughter took away Rs.3000/- from the house, and also
took away Jarnail Singh, accused, with her, in order to perform marriage,
with him. He voluntarily stated that a sum of Rs.3000/-, which he had
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 20
mentioned, in his statement, before the Police, was recovered
subsequently, by his wife, from the house itself. He further stated that he
made a mention of this fact, in his statement, before the Police, when he
did not find this amount, at the place, where he had kept the same. When
the evidence of Jagdish Chander, is read as a whole, then only one and
one conclusion, that can be arrived at, is that, he did not state that his
daughter left the house of her own, and took away the amount of
Rs.3000/-. No doubt, in the first instance, in his statement, before the
Police, he made such a mention, but when he appeared, in the Court, he
corrected the same, when he found the amount of RS.3000/- in his house.
In this view of the matter, the submission of the Counsel for the
appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
17. It was next submitted by the Counsel for the appellant, that the
appellant has been facing the criminal proceedings, since 1993, and his
sentence be reduced. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in
this regard, does not appear to be correct. The accused by kidnapping the
prosecutrix, from the lawful guardianship of her parents, with an intent to
induce her, to submit her to sexual intercourse, and committing rape with
her, caused a permanent stigma, on her life. The act of commission of
rape, by the accused, with the prosecutrix, can be described as depraved
and beastly. On account of the rise in crime, against women, no leniency
is required to be shown, to the appellant, in the matter of sentence. The
submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must
fail, and the same stands rejected.
18. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.
19. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of
Crl. Appeal No.247-SB of 1995 21
conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are
based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The
same do not warrant any interference, and are liable to be upheld.
20. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed.
The judgment of conviction dated 14.3.1995, and the order of sentence
dated 15.3.1995, are upheld. If the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds,
shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, shall take
necessary steps, to comply with the judgment, with due promptitude, and
compliance report be sent to this Court, within a period of one month,
from the date of receipt of a copy thereof.
4.11.2008 (SHAM SUNDER) Vimal JUDGE