PARAMJEET SINGH,J. - (1.) APPELLANTS have filed this appeal against judgment and order dated 05.04.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, vide which they were convicted for commission of offences punishable under Sections 366/376/379/506 IPC. Both the appellants have been awarded sentence as under;- Appellant ­ Sukhminder Singh: a) U/s.366 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three months. b) U/s 376 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three months; c) U/s 379 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. d) U/s 506 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. Appellant ­ Gurchet Singh: a) U/s.366 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three months. b) U/s 376 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and fine Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three months; c) U/s 379 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. d) U/s 506 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that on 30.11.2000, complainant-prosecutrix moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon, stating that she is resident of Village Sohian. On 11.11.2000, she was present at the Sem Nala (water logging drainage) to take Tempo to go Gurudwara Tahli Sahib, Raikot. She was having a pot in her hand in which she had put 'Parshad' to present at Gurudwara Tahli Sahib. At about 10 A.M. the accused came in a Maruti Car which was being driven by Sukha @ Sukhminder Singh and Gurchet Singh was sitting along side him. The accused-appellants stopped the car near her and asked her where she had to go. She was just to reply when Gurchet Singh ­ accused took out a handkerchief from his pocket and put it on her mouth and she became unconscious. The accused put the prosecutrix on the back seat of the car. When the prosecutrix regained consciousness, she found herself lying on the cot in the room of the motor at Village Sidhwan Kalan. Her clothes were torn at that time. She agitated but the accused forcibly tore her cloths. Both the accused were having knives in their hands and they threatened her with dire consequences. Both the accused committed rape with her against her consent. The appellants-accused snatched the ear rings of the prosecutrix and also took Rs.60/- from her which she was having for bus fare and also ate the Parshad. The prosecutrix was kept at the motor for whole of the day and her modesty was outraged. Thereafter, at night the prosecutrix was taken at the motor of Gurchet Singh, where also the accused committed rape with her and kept her there for whole night. On the next day, they dropped her at the same place from where she was abducted. She did not tell this incident to anyone as the accused threatened her with dire consequences. After some days, she told about this incident to her husband Kewal Singh, who along with his other relations reported the matter to Sukhdev Singh, Sarpanch of the village. The Sarpanch called the accused in the Panchayat many a times, but they did not bother to come. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police. The police registered the FIR and sent the prosecutrix to the hospital for medical examination. Dr. Parveen Bala Aggarwal had medico legally examined the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the accused were arrested and they were medico legally examined by Dr. H.S. Sidhu. After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants. The appellants denied the charges, refuted the prosecution story and pleaded not guilty and faced trial. The Trial Court after concluding the proceedings, vide judgment and order dated 05.04.2003 convicted both the appellants for committing gang rape and sentenced as aforementioned. The prosecution in order to prove its case, examined PW1 Dr. Parveen Bala Aggarwal, who had medico legally examined the prosecutrix on 01.12.2000 at 4.30 PM and she proved on record Ex.PA copy of medico legal report of prosecutrix. Dr. Parveen Bala Aggarwal was also examined as PW12 in order to prove the medico legal reports of the accused (Ex.PW10/I and Ex.PW10/J), since the doctor who medically examined the accused, was reported to have gone abroad. The prosecutrix appeared as PW2 and deposed on oath the entire prosecution version including the facts and circumstances under which she was abducted and her honour was ravished by the appellants against her consent and appellants committed snatching of her ear rings and Rs.60/- from her and thereafter, she has proved on record her statement Ex.PB given to the police and application (Ex.PC) given by the prosecutrix to the Sarpanch of the village and parcel of clothes taken into possession by police as Ex.PD. The prosecutrix also identified her clothes (Ex.P1 to P3) and Steel Jar (Dolu) (small container with handle) as Ex.P4. The prosecution also examined PW3 ­ Harbhajan Singh, who deposed that on 17.11.2000, he was called by Kewal Singh, husband of the prosecutrix, and on his arrival to the village, he came to know about the facts of abduction of the prosecutrix and rape committed upon her by the appellants and after consultation with his relations, the prosecutrix was asked to give application (Ex.PC) to the Sarpanch of the Village. The sarpanch called the appellants but they failed to turn up. PW4 constable Gurdeep Singh deposed on oath that on 1.12.2000 at 1 p.m. he had delivered the special report of this case to Illaqa Magistrate. PW5 ­ Baldev Raj, Clerk S.D.M. Office, Jagraon has proved on record the registration certificate of the car bearing No.PCS-8304 and deposed that it is registered in the name of Sukhminder Singh (appellant No.1). PW6 ­ Kewal Singh, husband of the prosecutrix, deposed that the prosecutrix after she came back, did not disclose the fact of her abduction and rape committed upon her and after 2-3 days, she narrated the whole story to him and that after making consultation with other family members, an application was given to the Sarpanch of the village, who called the appellants, but they did not turn up. PW7 ­ Sukhdev Singh, Sarpanch of village Sohian proved the application (Ex.PC) moved by the prosecutrix and also deposed that in spite of his repeated calls, the appellants did not turn up and he further deposed that the prosecutrix was advised to move to the higher police authorities. PW9 ­ HC Davinder Singh deposed that on receipt of Ex.PB, which was endorsed by Inspector Baldev Singh as Ex.PB/1, a formal FIR (Ex.PB/2) was recorded by him. He also deposed that ASI Surjit Singh deposited the case property with him on 07.12.2000 which included one pair of ear rings, one steel jar (Dolu), Maruti Car and torn clothes of the prosecutrix. PW10 Inspector Baldev Singh, who acted as Investigating Officer, has deposed that on 01.12.2000 on receipt of application (Ex.PB), he made his endorsement over it and signed at point Ex.PW10/A and on the basis of the same, formal FIR (Ex.PB/2) was recorded. He also deposed that at the instance of the prosecutrix, he prepared the rough site plans of the places of the occurrence (Ex.PW10/B, Ex.PW10/C and Ex.PW10/D). The said witness further deposed that the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and proved an application (Ex.PW10/E) moved for her examination. He further deposed that on 05.12.2000, Jagdish Singh, Member Panch produced before him the appellants. Accordingly, they were informed about the grounds of arrest vide memos Ex.PW10/F and Ex.PW10/G. Personal search memo of the case was proved on record as Ex.PW10/H. The said witness further deposed that on 06.12.2000, he filed an application for medical examination of the accused and the concerned doctor declared both the accused fit to perform sexual intercourse. ASI Surjit Singh was examined as PW11, who deposed that on 07.12.2000 during investigation, the accused Gurchet Singh and Sukhminder Singh suffered disclosure statements (Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B respectively). In pursuance of those disclosure statements, accused Gurchet Singh got recovered one pair of ear rings and steel jar (Dolu), which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PW11/C and in pursuance of disclosure statement of Sukhminder Singh got one Maruti car was recovered which was taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex.PW11/D). He further proved on record Ex.PW11/E and Ex.PW11/F site plans of the places of recovery, PW11/G recovery memo of registration certificate of the car. He has also identified Steel Jar (Dolu) (Ex.P4) and pair of ear rings (Ex.P5).
(3.) AFTER recording of the prosecution evidence, statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellants were recorded. The appellants denied the entire incriminating evidence and pleaded their false implication. The appellants in their defence examined DW1 Jagjit Singh, who deposed that prosecutrix is a lady of bad character and for this reason, her husband and her in laws had been picking up quarrels with her. He further deposed that the prosecutrix is in the habit of leaving her matrimonial house and once she also tried to commit suicide. However, the matter was compromised. It is also deposed by DW1 that there was a dispute between the accused and Kewal Singh, husband of the prosecutrix regarding the loan of Rs.24,000-25,000/-. DW2 ­ Gurdev Singh deposed that he is Ex- Sarpanch of Village Sohian and the place from where the prosecution was alleged to have been abducted, is a thorough-fare. He further deposed that many persons including ladies remain present at the spot. There is a bus stand, medicine shop, milk dairy and liquor vend near the place of alleged occurrence. DW3 ­ Baldev Singh and DW4 ­ Kaka Singh have also deposed on similar lines. The learned Trial Court after appraisal of evidence on record, came to a conclusion that guilt of the appellants stood proved on record and accordingly, they have been convicted and sentenced as referred to herein above. Hence, this appeal.;