Gangal vs State of Haryana

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—The appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentence, which is as under:-

U/s 450 IPC Five years

U/s 354 IPC One year

Both sentences were to run concurrently.

Case of the prosecution is that K (real name withheld) (hereinafter referred to as Prosecutrix) was a student of 5th class. On 18.7.1990, the

Prosecutrix returned from the school at 120 Noon. Her parents were not at home. At 4.30 P.M., accused Gangal entered the house, took the

Prosecutrix in his arms, felled her on a cot, unstringed the salwar of the prosecutrix and his own payjama and kachha. He then pressed her on the

cot by his knees placed on her breast. She cried. Mother of the prosecutrix entered the house and she gave a blow to the accused with Madhani

(stick used for extracting butter from the milk). The accused ran away from the house. Meanwhile, father of the prosecutrix also came. Parents of

the prosecutrix took her to police post where her statement was recorded, which led to registration of FIR. The accused was arrested on the next

day and was medico-legally examined. On completion of investigation, the accused was challaned. Charge was framed against him under Sections

376/511 IPC, but subsequently, charge u/s 450 IPC was also added.

The prosecution examined eight witnesses including the prosecutrix PW5, her mother PW6 Durga Devi, PW3 Hardwari Lal ASI and PW8

Prem Singh ASI, who investigated the case and PW1 Dr.Krishan Kumar, who medico-legally examined the accused.

In his statement u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused took the plea that he had intimacy with mother of the prosecutrix and

used to have sex with her by payment of money. It was also stated that the present case was filed to extract money. The trial court held the case of

the prosecution to be fully proved mainly in view of evidence of PW5 prosecutrix and PW6 Durga Devi. PW1 Dr.Krishan Kumar was examined

to show that there was an injury on the left arm of the accused, which corroborated the version of Durga Devi. The defence was held not to be

probable. It was held that offence under Sections 376/511 IPC was not made out and the offence fell u/s 354 IPC and Section 450 IPC.

I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the evidence on record.

No meaningful reason could be shown to disbelieve the evidence of PW5 prosecutrix who was 12 years of age at the relevant time. Her version

appears to be truthful. Her version is also corroborated by her mother Durga Devi PW6. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the conviction

of the appellant under Sections 354/450 IPC.

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the occurrence is 15 years old; the parties were nighbourers and no untoward incident had taken for the

last 15 years, the prosecutrix is happily married and settled; the appellant is having children and is now aged 47 years.

Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the ends of justice will be met, if the substantive sentence of imprisonment is reduced to RI

for one year subject to the appellant paying compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the victim within four months from today. The amount may either be

directly paid and proof furnished in the court of CJM, Rohtak or deposited in the court of CJM, Rohtak, from where the victim will be at liberty to

withdraw the same. If the amount is not paid, the sentence awarded by the trial court will stand.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.