- (1.) This judgment shall dispose of both the abovementioned appeals. CRA No. 596 SB of 2001, has been filed by Parvati and CRA No. 606 SB of 2001 has been filed by Naresh Kumar @ Nesha against the judgment and order dated 12/16.4.2001, whereby Parvati was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/3-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo for one month under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code; further sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months under Section 366 of IPC; further sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 342 read with Section 34 of IPC, all the sentences were order to run concurrently. Naresh Kumar accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for two months under Section 376 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 342 read with Section 34 of IPC. All the sentences were order to run concurrently. The facts necessary for adjudication of the matter as narrated in para nos.2 and 3 of the impugned judgement are as under:- On 8.11.1999, Parvati accused approached the prosecutrix while she was sleeping with her sister in a room of her house. She woke her up and took her to the Chaubara (top floor) of the house of Naresh accused, who was already present there. She was lodged into a room there and Parvati accused told her that she had a good opportunity of eloping with Naresh accused. She then bolted the room from outside and moved away with Naresh accused saying that he would return soon after chalking out a programme. After some time, Naresh accused entered the room and bolted it from inside. He asked the prosecutrix that she would have to now stay there hiding herself as the villagers had already got up. He then committed rape upon her. He gagged her mouth and threatened to kill her as she tried to make a noise. Thereafter, he left the room with the direction that she should keep herself concealed beneath the bed from his mother or sister in case either of them happened to visit the first floor. She was told that she would be done to death if his instructions were not strictly followed. The prosecutrix then lied on the floor and went into sleep. 3. In the evening, Naresh accused entered the room to tell her that it would not be possible for them to leave the village since her parents were searching her. He then again forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and moved away after bolting the door from outside. She kept on hearing the conversation which was being made by the women folk of the village during the night and enquired from Naresh accused when the latter had re-entered the room, as to what was being loudly discussed outside. She was told that a village Panchayat was going on with regard to her missing. She was kept confined in the room throughout the night and Naresh accused committed yet another forcible act of sexual intercourse with her. In the wee hours of the next morning i.e. on 9.11.1999, Bhago who was Mausi of Naresh accused, took her out of the room and left her near the heap of Parali in the village. She was noticed sitting and weeping thereby one Somi who then took her to her house. Her father was bringing her to police station for reporting the matter but Surjit Kumar, Sub Inspector (S.I.) met them at bus stand of village Khuda, where he alongwith other policemen was patrolling. The prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to him. Her statement was recorded and on its basis, First Information Report (FIR) was drawn up thereby registering a case under Sections 363, 366, 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
(2.) After completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court. The accused Parvati was charged under Sections 363, 366, 342 /34 of IPC and accused Naresh Kumar was charged under Sections 376, 342 /34 of IPC, to which, they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
(3.) In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined PW1 HC Ved Parkash, PW2 Constable Sukhdev Singh, PW3 Constable Dayal Chand, PW4 Constable Jai Bhagwan, PW5 Constable Ram Saran, PW6 SI Gurbachan Singh, PW7 Dr. Shashi Tripathi, PW8 father of the prosecutrix, PW9 prosecutrix (Name of the prosecutrix withheld in view of Supreme Court guidelines in 2004 Criminal law Journal page 1), PW10 Dr. Satish Kumar, PW11 Surjit Kumar, Investigating Officer, PW12 Smt. Harminder Kaur, Head Teacher and by tendering some documents, closed its evidence.;