M.M.AGGARWAL, J. - (1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two appeals, one filed by Ram Kumar and other filed by Joginder Pal and Navinder Singh against judgment/order dated 9.10.2002 and 12.10.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala. Vide that judgment, accused-appellant Ram Kumar was convicted for the offence under Sections 376/366-A/363 IPC whereas accused-appellants Joginder Pal and Navinder Singh had been convicted for the offence under Sections 366-A/363 IPC. For the offence under Section 376 IPC, accused- appellant Ram Kumar was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo RI for one month, for the offence under Section 366-A IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo RI for one month and for the offence under Section 363 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was to undergo RI for one month. On the other hand, accused-appellants Joginder Pal and Navinder Singh were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo RI for one month each for the offence under Section 366-A IPC and to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, they were to undergo RI for one month for the offence under Section 363 IPC.
(2.) PROSECUTION case against the accused-appellants is that on the night of 17/18.1.2001, Shilpa, a girl aged about 13 and half years was kidnapped by the accused-appellants with intention to force her to have illicit relations with Ram Kumar. Then Ram Kumar had committed rape on her. Case against the accused was registered at the instance of Om Parkash, uncle of Shilpa minor girl for the offence under Sections 363/366-A/376/120-B IPC. Then Shilpa was recovered on 20.1.2001. She was sent for medical examination. Accused-appellants were arrested and then they had been sent for trial. After trial, case for the offence under Sections 376/366-A/363 IPC was found to be proved as against accused-appellant Ram Kumar whereas case for the offence under Sections 366- A/363 IPC was found to be proved as against other accused. They were accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Counsel for accused-appellants Joginder Pal and Navinder Singh had argued that these appellants had played no role. From the statement of Shilpa prosecutrix herself, it was pointed out that Shilpa had love affairs with Ram Kumar and had gone of her own to the room of the accused. It was argued that these two accused namely Joginder Pal and Navinder Singh did not accompany Shilpa anywhere; that as per her statement only Ram Kumar had committed rape on her and took her to Bathinda.
(3.) COUNSEL for the accused-appellant Ram Kumar had argued that during medical examination, no external injury was found on the person of Shilpa. Her vagine admitted two fingers, which means she was habitual to sexual intercourse.;