TARSEM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 13.07.2011 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in Sessions Case no.23 dated 03.02.2010 whereby the appellant was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). He has been convicted thereunder and sentenced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_161_LAWS(P&H)7_2019_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that complainant Sona (wife of appellant Tarsem Lal) got her statement Ex.PD recorded with SI Jagdish Chander to the effect that she was married with the accused about 20 years ago. She gave birth to three children. The prosecutrix (name withheld) was her eldest daughter, aged about 17 years. Tarsem Lal was owner of the vehicle. The same was used by him for transportation of vegetables in Vallah Mandi. He was habitual of taking intoxicants, liquor etc. On the intervening night of 04/05.10.2009, the complainant along with her two sons was sleeping in one of the rooms of her house and in other room, the prosecutrix (her daughter) was sleeping. Accused came to the house at about 10.30 P.M. He was under the influence of intoxicants. He after parking the vehicle went to the room of the prosecutrix. He administered some intoxicating substance to her. He committed sexual intercourse with her. He threatened her. In the morning, the complainant saw prosecutrix vomiting. She enquired from her. The prosecutrix told her that during the night the accused committed sexual intercourse with her after administering some intoxicants to her. On the basis of statement, FIR Ex.PD/2 was recorded. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr.Rupam Pasricha. The prosecutrix was again got medically examined on 07.10.2009. Accused was arrested. He was also medically examined. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) The prosecution examined a number of witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the case of prosecution. According to him, he could never think to rape his daughter. His wife started living immoral life to which he was objecting. He was economically poor person. When he started objecting to the same, his wife initially quarreled with him and by misusing the name of his daughter and by tutoring her, got a false case registered against him. The appellant was convicted and sentenced, as noticed hereinabove.