Daljit Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Mahesh Grover, J.—The present appeal is directed against judgment dated 5.6.2006 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter described as `the trial Court'') whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner:

Appellant-Daljit Singh

(i) for offence punishable under to undergo rigorous impri- Section 376/120B of the I.P.C. sonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprison ment of one month.

(ii) for offence punishable u/s 366 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous impris onment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprison ment of one month.

(iii) for offence punishable u/s 342 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous impris onment for a period of three months.

(iv) for offence punishable u/s 506 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous impris onment for a period of three months.

Appellants- Harpreet Siongh and Jagdip Singh (i) for offence punishable u/s 376 of the I.P.C. (ii) for offence punishable u/s 366 of the I.P.C. (iii) for offence punishable underSection 342 of the I.P.C. (iv) for offence punishable underSection 506 of the I.P.C. to undergo rigorous impris onment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each and in default of payment of fine, each of them to further undergo rigorous imprison ment of one month. to undergo rigorous impris onment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each and in default of payment of fine, each of them to further undergo rigorous imprison ment of one month.to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months each. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The allegations against the appellants flow from a complaint which is on record as Exhibit-PA. It reveals that on 13.8.2000 at about 5.30 P.M., appellant No. 3-Jagdip Singh along with Jaspal Kaur daughter of Daljit Singh (appellant No. 1) came to the house of the prosecutrix and persuaded her to reach at the bus stop of Dhaliwal, a town near Amritsar, at 6.30 P.M. so that some compromise could be effected in a criminal case got registered by appellant-Daljit Singh vide F.I.R.No. 91 dated 26.5.2000 under Sections 420/34 of the I.P.C. against her and others. When she went along with her husband and daughter at the stated place, the appellants and Jaspal Kaur came in a jeep and goaded the prosecutrix to come with them to complete the process of compromise. Her husband and daughter were asked to sit at the bus stop. She thereafter boarded the jeep alone and accompanied the appellants, who drove her around for some time till darkness descended and then took her to a room which was secluded and there, Daljit Singh (appellant No. 1), armed with a 12 bore gun and appellant-Jagdip Singh, armed with a sword, threatened the prosecutrix with their respective arms, beat her up mercilessly by giving fist and kick blows in the abdomen and forcibly committed sexual inter-course upon her one by one, while the others kept the threat of death alive. Subsequent to the incident, the prosecutrix is said to have come back to her husband, who was waiting at the bus stop and narrated the story in the presence of his friend, namely, Darshan Singh.

A complaint, particularly with the aforesaid allegations, was filed against the appellants and Jaspal Kaur on 17.8.2000 upon which the Illaqa Magistrate directed the police to register an F.I.R. which was done on the same day itself at about 8.30 P.M.

The prosecutrix was got medically examined on 18.8.2000 at 6.45 P.M. and the police, after completion of the investigation in the matter, submitted a challan against all the accused persons. All the accused persons named in the complaint were charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 307, 376, 366, 342, 354, 506, 120B and Section 25 of the Arms Act. They pleaded innocence and claimed trial.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, produced as many as ten witnesses including PW8-Dr.Artinder Kaur Dhillon, who had medico- legally examined the prosecutrix.

All the accused persons were examined u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., who denied the entire evidence against them. Appellant-Daljit Singh stated, in his statement, that his son-Onkar Singh was studying in M.A.Class in Khalsa College,Amritsar when he was abducted/ disappeared in 1992 and could not be traced despite best efforts. Then, he happened to meet Sawran Singh, who was a Head Constable in Punjab Police and was married in their village. The said Sawran Singh promised him help in locating his son and on that pretext, started extracting money from him. After some time, Swaran Singh told that his son had been located in C.I.A.Staff, Ropar and got Rs.10000/-, Rs.5000/-and Rs.20,000/-for providing comforts to him. Swaran Singh also disclosed to him that Onkar Singh had married and he then introduced the prosecutrix to him. At that time, the prosecutrix was holding a child and she represented to him that she was the wife of Onkar Singh and the child was also his. After staying for some time at the house, she went back and then on 21.5.2000, she demanded Rs.two lacs on telephone for purchasing a car for his son. Upon this, he is said to have become suspicious and got a criminal case registered against Swaran Singh, who also posed as Reader to the Senior Superintendent of Police and the prosecutrix. The police arrested the prosecutrix but the challan was not presented and a cancellation report was submitted in that case. Thereafter, a criminal complaint was filed by him on the same allegations in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate in which Swaran Singh and the prosecutrix have been summoned and the same is pending. In order to pressurize him to withdraw that complaint, the present false case has been foisted upon him and other accused persons.

Appellant-Harprit Singh set up a plea of alibi by stating that on the relevant day, he was on duty as Helper on 13.8.2000 at Gurdwara Toba Bhai Saloji, Amritsar from 11.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M.

Five witnesses were examined by the accused persons in their defence. On appraisal of the entire evidence before it, the trial Court concluded that the appellants were guilty of committing the offences alleged against them. By the impugned order, it convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner noticed hereinabove, whereas acquitted Jaspal Kaur after giving her benefit of doubt.

Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the testimony of the prosecutrix is uninspiring. It was pleaded that her statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. had been recorded before the Magistrate on her application. The stand of the prosecutrix in her complaint Exhibit-PA, her statement u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. and her testimony before the trial Court is not consistent which causes a serious doubt on the truthfulness of the allegations. Besides, it has been stated in the complaint that appellant- Daljit Singh was armed with a gun and appellant-Harprit Singh with sword, yet, none of these weapons had been recovered and the medical testimony does not bear out any injury on the person of the prosecutrix which belies her story altogether as she has testified that she was brutally beaten by giving fist and kick blows, but only multiple abrasion marks were present anteriorly on sternum area and even those marks were only one day old and superficial in nature, which could have been suffered by a friendly hand, as has been disclosed by PW8-Dr.Artinder Kaur Dhillon. This medical evidence coupled with the fact that there was an F.I.R. and a complaint registered at the behest of appellant-Daljit Singh, who had been duped by the prosecutrix in collusion with Swaran Singh shows that the case is not bona fide. That apart, another complaint was filed by the prosecutrix on 2.1.2002 again alleging that she had been molested and ultimately, the matter was compromised and the complaint initiated by appellant-Daljit Singh u/s 420 of the I.P.C. was got withdrawn on the strength of this compromise. Further, the appellants had suffered a conviction in the complaint filed by the prosecutrix u/s 354 of the I.P.C., but in appeal, on the basis of the said compromise, they were acquitted. These proceedings have been brought on record by the appellants by way of Crl.Misc.No. 73825 of 2006. On the strength of this, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court is not sustainable.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State contended that the appellants were guilty of heinous offences and they have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and have perused the record.

Appellant-Daljit Singh is the initiator of F.I.R.No. 91 dated 26.5.2000 registered under the provisions of Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 of the I.P.C. with Police Station, Central, District Amritsar. The said F.I.R. was directed against the prosecutrix and Swaran Singh, who was working as Reader to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar. The aforesaid F.I.R. was cancelled and the necessary proceedings to that effect are on record as Exhibit-DG. Thereafter, a complaint is said to have been filed by appellant-Daljit Singh on the same allegations against the prosecutrix and Swaran Singh. In this back-drop of the matter, the allegations against the appellants sprouted. This is also the defence version as taken by appellant No. 1 in his statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. Hence, the testimony of the prosecutrix and the entire evidence has to be necessarily tested keeping in mind the aforestated allegations levelled by appellant No. 1.

The prosecutrix was obviously not known to the appellants earlier till the time she was introduced by Swaran Singh as his daughter-inlaw married to his missing son. Both the accused persons in F.I.R.No. 91 dated 26.5.2000 had allegedly extracted money from appellant No. 1-Daljit Singh. The prosecutrix, in her complaint which ultimately assumed the form of F.I.R. which was lodged four days after the occurrence, had stated that appellant-Daljit Singh was armed with 12 bore gun and he threatened to shoot her if she had raised any alarm and Jaspal Kaur is said to have held her from hair. Jagdip Singh-appellant caught hold of her arms while appellant-Harprit Singh pulled her to the room upon which appellant-Daljit Singh bolted the room from outside and also threatened to kill her if she raised any alarm. Then appellants-Jagdip Singh and Harprit Singh committed rape upon her turn by turn while Jaspal Kaur caught her from hair when Jagdip Singh was committing rape and Harprit Singh sat at guard with a naked sward and when Harprit Singh raped her then Jagdip Singh threatened her with a sward. She was also hit with the butt of the gun. After the incident, she is said to have gone to bus stop at Dhaliwal and narrated the whole story to her husband and Darshan Singh, who was standing there.

In her statement recorded u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix stated that she was beaten up mercilessly and strangulated and was left for dead. Darkness had fallen by the time the offence had been completed and thereafter, she reached the police station and then to the bus stop where her husband was present. When one is to examine the allegations in the complaint, then curious aspects of the case cry out for an answer.

When the F.I.R./ complaint was initiated by appellant No. 1Daljit Singh in the first instance against the prosecutrix, then what could be the reason for him and other accused persons to come to her house in search for a compromise. When the shoe ought to have been on the other foot, i.e., the prosecutrix as the aggrieved person with the accused at the receiving end of the complaint should have been the initiator of the talks of the compromise and not the other way around. Even if that were to be ignored, why would her husband permit her to board the jeep at 6.30 P.M. in the evening and permit her to go with the persons, who were ostensibly her tormentors. Thirdly, if the husband had been apprised of her brutal experience immediately after the incident in the presence of a friend, then why is it that no serious effort was made by both of them to lodge an F.I.R. with the police.

The only explanation given is that on the day in question, the Station House Officer was not present and they were asked to come back on the next day when no action was taken.

The conduct and the explanation belies the conduct of a woman who has been brutalized and the husband, who has been wronged in such a manner.

The alleged friend of the husband of the prosecutrix, namely, Darshan Singh, in whose presence the story was blurted out by the prosecutrix, has also not been examined.

The medical testimony of PW8-Dr.Artinder Kaur Dhillon reveals that the prosecutrix had not suffered any injury except marks of abrasions on her sternum which were one day old, whereas the incident concededly had taken place five days prior to her medical examination. PW8 also opined that the abrasions could be suffered by a friendly hand. There were no injuries on her back or marks on her neck because she had stated that she had been strangulated and left for dead. The traces of semen were, however, found by the Chemical Examiner in the vaginal swabs,but, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecutrix is a married woman and the medical examination was done after five days of the alleged incident. The semen was not connected by way of any evidence to the appellants and in any eventuality, she is said to have bathed and cleaned herself during this intervening period. Hence, not only this statement of the prosecutrix is entirely uninspiring, but there is failing corroborative evidence which does not conclusively establishes the culpability of the appellants.

The prosecution has also not recovered the weapons which were allegedly used to threaten and silence the prosecution into submission.

Jaspal Kaur, who was the daughter of appellant-Daljit Singh was also assigned active role during the commission of offence which has been disbelieved by the trial Court and she has been acquitted.

For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations against the appellants as flowing from the complaint are merely stemming from the machinations of the diabolical mind and are not a truthful reflection of a woman wronged.

Hence, the appeal is accepted, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them.