SUNIL KUMAR GARG - (1.) The above-named accused-appellant has preferred this appeal from Jail against the judgment and order dated 21-8-1999 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) Court, Sri Ganganagar, in Sessions Case No. 16/98 by which he convicted the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 6 months' R.I. Note :- That since this appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant, Satpal alias Satnam Singh, from Jail and he was not represented by any counsel, therefore, Shri D.K. Gaur, Advocate, was appointed by this Court as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court and argue this appeal on behalf of the accused-appellant.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances :- P.W. 2 Mukhtiyar Singh lodged a report Ex. P/4 in the Police Station, Gharsana district Sri Ganganagar on 9-9-1997 before PW-8 Jeewan Ram, S.H.O. Police Station Gharsana stating inter alia that he and his son Sukhvinder Singh and brother Sucha Singh went to Baba Ram Deo Mela on 31-8-1997, and, when they were there, his younger brother Sukh Deo Singh, PW-4 came there and informed that in the evening of 4-9-1997 at about 5.30 p.m. when his daughter PW-1 Baljeet Kaur was cutting grass in the field, accused appellant came there and caught hold of her hands and put her on the ground and after pressing her mouth, he opened the nada of her salwar and committed rape on her. When PW-1 Baljeet Kaur cried, PW-4, Sukh Deo Singh, younger brother of PW-2 Mukhtiyar Singh and Bhabhee of PW-2 Mukhtiyar Singh reached on the spot and on seeing them, the accused-appellant ran away. It is further stated by PW-2 Mukhtiyar Singh in his report that he reached at his house on 8-9-1997 and thereafter he was also informed about the incident by his daughter PW-1 Baljeet Kaur and wife PW-3 Balvinder Kaur and then, the report has been lodged. On this report, the police registered a case and chalked out the FIR and started investigation. During investigation, site plan Ex. P1 was prepared and Salwar was seized through Ex. P.2 and some pieces of broken bangles were also seized through Ex. P.3 and accused-appellant was medically examined and his Medical Report is Ex. P. 7 regarding potency. PW-1 Baljeet Kaur was also medically examined by PW-9 Dr. Chandra Bhan Middha and her Medical Report is Ex. P 13. After usual investigation, a challan was filed against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. in the Court of Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of Session. The learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar, vide his order dated 31-3-1998 framed charge for the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. against the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited some documents and thereafter, the statement of accused-appellant under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded. After completion of trial, the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar vide his judgment and order dated 21-8-1999 convicted the accused-appellant under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above, holding inter alia :- 1. That accused-appellant has committed the offence under Section 376, I.P.C. 2. That if some infirmities are found in the investigation of the police, in such cases, doubt should not be created on the statement of the prosecutrix, PW-1 Baljeet Kaur. 3.That argument that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in this case because of the enmity between PW-2 Mukhtiyar Singh and the accused-appellant Satpal, is not tenable. Aggrieved from the said Judgment and Order dated 21-8-1999 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities), Sri Ganganagar, this appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant from Jail.
(3.) In this appeal, the learned Amicus Curiae for the accused-appellant has made the the following submissions :- 1. That in this case the incident has taken place on 4-9-1997 and the report has been lodged on 9-9-1997. Thus, there is a considerable delay in lodging the report and, therefore, the case of the prosecution is doubtful and it should not be accepted and the accused-appellant should be acquitted of the charge framed against him. 2. That the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity between the father of the prosecutrix Mukhtiyar Singh, PW-2 and the accused-appellant. 3. That in the present case, there was some infirmities in the investigation conducted by the police and, therefore, on this ground, the accused-appellant be acquitted of the charge under Section 376, IPC. ;