- (1.) The appellant Sat Parkash, his uncle Hari Chand and aunt Sarla, were charged with the following, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat on 18.10.1993: "Firstly:- That you Sat Parkash on 7.6.1992 in the area of Ganaur kidnapped Kumari Sushila alias Punam, a minor girl aged about 15 years from the lawful guardianship of her father Jagdish PW and thereby you Sat Parkash accused committed an offence punishable under Section 363 IPC within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly:-1 That on the said date, time and place you Sat Parkash accused kidnapped Kumari Sushila alias Punam, a girl aged about 15 year minor daughter of Jagdish PW with intent that said Sushila may be forced to illicit intercourse with you Sat Parkash and thereby you Sat Parkash accused committed an offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Thirdly:- That from 7.6.1992 in the area of Ganaur, Murthai and other place, you Sat Parkash accused committed rape upon the person of Sushila alias Punam and thereby you Sat Parkash commit and offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Fourthly:- That you Sarla and Hari Chand accused on 12.6.1992 in the area of Ganaur knowing that Kumari Sushila alias Punam has been kidnapped or has been abducted by Sat Parkash, co-accused and you both wrongfully concealed said Kumari Sushila alias Punam in your house at Ganaur and thereby you all committed an offence punishable under Section 368 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Fifthly:- That you all viz. Hari Chand, Sarla and Sat Parkash accused on 12.6.1992 in the area of Ganaur in furtherance of the common intention, did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Kumari Sushila alias Punam when she was administered poison and thus you all thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and within the cognizance of this Court."
(2.) It is not a matter of dispute, that the uncle-Hari Chand and aunt-Sarla (of Sat Parkash) have since been acquitted. The appellant Sat Parkash has also been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) The surviving charges against the appellant are relatable only to Sections 363, 366, 366-A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the "suicide note" executed by the deceased Sushila just before she attempted to commit suicide. It is not a matter of dispute,that the appellant - Sat Parkash, had also made a similar attempt to commit along with Sushila. While in the attempt, Sushila had died, but somehow Sat Parkash survived. The "suicide note" of Sushila is available on the record of this case as annexure P-6.;