- (1.) The appellant was convicted under Section 366/120-B IPC and Section 376/120-B IPC. She was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- under both the Sections. In default of payment of fine, she was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and the sentence on each count was to run concurrently. It is necessary to give few facts. Santokh Singh, father of the prosecutrix lodged a complaint with the police that his daughter a student of B.A. 2nd year had gone to the college on 08.02.2001 but had not returned. They waited for her till evening and made inquiries from the relatives and friends. The complainant had mentioned that Lakhwinder Singh, Balwant Singh and Raj Kaur were tenants in their house and had taken one room and a kitchen on rent in February, 2000. Jangir Kaur, mother of Lakhwinder used to visit them. After some time they had learnt that the family was not good and they were of suspicious character, they made enquiries about them and their fears were affirmed. Allegations were levelled that Lakhwinder Singh had kidnapped his daughter.
(2.) On the basis of the complaint, the FIR was registered and investigations were started. After about four months, the police got some clues and recovered the victim from a house. The recovery of girl was effected on 27.06.2001. The victim was sent for her medical examination. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The police could arrest only Kamaljit Kaur and Jangir Kaur. The remaining persons named by the prosecutrix were declared proclaimed offenders. The prosecution examined the complainant, the victim, the Medical Officers and the Police Officers and held Kamaljit Kaur and Jangir Kaur guilty. Jangir Kaur was the mother of Lakhwinder, who was the main accused, against whom the allegations of rape were levelled while Kamaljit Kaur was said to be the landlady in whose house the victim had been confined. A separate appeal was filed by Jagir Kaur, but it has been reported that she had died. That appeal had abated. I have heard the counsel of both the sides.
(3.) The counsel for the appellant had urged that the complaint was silent so far as the role of appellant Kamaljit Kaur was concerned and we have only the statement of the victim and if her statement is seen, then there is absolutely no evidence against the appellant and the only role assigned to her is that the girl was taken to Bhawanigarh to the house of Kamaljit Kaur and the victim was confined in her house and she was beaten by Raj Kaur, Lakhwinder Singh and Kamaljit Kaur. It was urged that Lakhwinder's family was a tenant in that house and the police has not even prepared the site plan of that house and the victim has stated that she did not know the family members of Kamaljit Kaur and she has been roped in only because she was the landlady. It was urged that the girl was major and she had lived with Lakhwinder for almost five months and it was a case of consent. The State counsel supported the judgment and urged that the victim had spoken about the role played by Kamaljit Kaur and she was beaten up by all of them including the appellant.;