PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. UNION ADMINISTRATION CHANDIGARH
LAWS(SC)-2006-8-56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 18,2006

PARDEEP KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
UNION ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SURENDRA SINGH BAGHEL VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-5-164] [REFERRED]
DHARMA RAJAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDER VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-5-87] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. ROSHAN KHAN [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
SAYYAD TAHIR HUSSAIN MAINUDDIN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-164] [REFERRED TO]
BABLA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGAR [LAWS(CHH)-2023-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
IKRAR VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-482] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL GUPTA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
TITIN KAR ALIAS TATAN ALIAS SUNJAY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-7-16] [REFERRED TO]
JODHRAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-86] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVARAM VS. STATE OF CHHATISHGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2009-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
SH. J. LALRUATSANGA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
TECHI TADAM VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2020-5-59] [REFERRED TO]
ASHPAK LALMOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD ANSARI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-211] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-237] [REFERRED TO]
THONGAM TARUN SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(SC)-2011-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
YAD RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2008-2-31] [REFERRED TO]
JAILAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2007-7-3] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P. P. Naolekar, J. - (1.)Accused Lalit Gupta, Ashok Kumar alias Babbu, Pardeep Kumar and Karam Chand were tried under Sections 366, 376, whereas accused-Inderjit Singh was tried under Section 376 read with Section 109 and Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC"). All the five accused were held guilty under Section 376, IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of two months. The accused preferred appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Ashok Kumar and Karam Chand died during pendency of proceedings; Inderjit Singh was acquitted of the charge under Section 376, IPC, while the conviction of Lalit Gupta and Pardeep Kumar under Section 376, IPC was upheld by the High Court. Against the impugned judgment, accused- Pardeep Kumar has preferred this appeal by special leave.
(2.)The prosecution case as set out in the First Information Report (FIR) is that the prosecutrix was living in House No. 3359, Sector 19D, Chandigarh with her brother and mother. Accused-Lalit Gupta was after her and also promised to marry her. On 2nd February, 1987 at about 6.30 p.m., the prosecutrix had gone to the market of Sector 19. Accused-Lalit Gupta met her in the market and invited her to the house of his cousin so that the proposal regarding marriage could be discussed with his relations. On this, the prosecutrix agreed to accompany him to Sector 38, Chandigarh. Lalit Gupta hired a three-wheeler scooter (auto-rickshaw) and they proceeded towards Sector 38. In the midway, the auto-rickshaw was got stopped by Lalit Gupta and accused-Ashok Kumar alias Babbu also boarded the auto-rickshaw. When the prosecutrix, Lalit Gupta and Ashok Kumar entered the house, another accused-Inderjit Singh, who was acquitted by the High Court, met them there. The three accused then consumed liquor in the house. When the advances made by the accused were resisted, accused-Inderjit Singh threatened her with dire consequences of death and thereafter she yielded to the wishes of the accused persons. Thereafter, Lalit Gupta committed rape on the prosecutrix against her wish and without her consent which was followed by Ashok Kumar who also defiled her. Thereafter, Karam Chand and Pardeep Kumar arrived there and they also committed rape. All of them started taking liquor in another room, taking advantage, the prosecutrix escaped from the house. On the way, she met police personnel to whom she narrated the whole incident. The police came to the house and apprehended Pardeep Kumar, Karam Chand and Lalit Gupta, but two other accused Ashok Kumar and Inderjit Singh managed to escape. The FIR was lodged on the intervening night of 2nd and 3rd February, 1987 with Sub-Inspector Moti Ram at about 2.20 a.m. The prosecutrix was unmarried at the time of incident, and she was sent for medical examination. Dr. G.K. Dhillon examined her on 3rd February, 1987 at 1.30 p.m. and found no evidence of any external injury. The doctor also opined that she was habitual to sexual intercourse.
(3.)The High Court, inter alia, has upheld the conviction of the accused-appellant Pardeep Kumar for the offence under Section 376, IPC relying on the version of the prosecutrix supported by the testimony of Constable Raghubir Singh to whom she had narrated the entire incident soon after her escape from the place of occurrence. The High Court has observed that the presence of the accused-appellant on the spot where the rape was committed by other accused persons, was further corroborated by the fact that he was apprehended from that house itself by CRPF jawans.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.