Jit Singh vs State of Punjab

A.S. Bains, J.

Jit Singh appellant alongwith Paramjit Singh coaccused was convicted for the offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years'' rigorous imprisonment and to ray fine of Rs. 500/, in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months by learned Additional Sessions Judge Jullundur. The appellant has challenging in led his conviction and sentenced by way of this appeal.

The prosecution case as disclosed by Smt. Balwinder Kaur prosecutrix is that her husband is serving in Army and she was residing in village Chitti with her motherinlaw, Smt. Channo P.W. and that she has got a son named Sukhdev Singh aged six years. On December 26, 1979 at about 11 A.M. she had gone out to the other side of the canal minor for bringing fodder from the fields and was going on the pucca road leading from village Singha. When she reached near potato field of Bhajan Singh both Jit Singh alias Surjit Singh, appellant and Paramit Singh coaccused came there and caught hold of her and took her to a nearby waterchannel. Paran Jit Singh alias Pammi accused gagged her mouth and caught hold of her by both of her arms while Jit Singh appellant removed her salwar forcibly and committed rape upon her. Thereafter, At Singh appellant caught hold of her from both her arms while Paramjit Singh accused committed rape upon her. She raised an alarm which attracted her motherinlaw Smt. Channo P.W. and Thakar Singh resident of village Chitti and on their arrival both the appellant and his coaccused ran away along with their clothes. During the struggle with the appellant, the clothes of the prosecutrix were also torn. After the occurrence both she and Smt. Channo returned home weeping. There Suchet Singh father of Jit Singh appellant along with other persons came to their house and tried to compromise and did not Allow them to go to the Police Station for lodging the report regarding the incident.

On December 29, 1979, the prosecutrix along with her motherinlaw Smt. Channo started for the Police Station. On the way, A.S.I. Sat Paul met them at village Lambra. Her Statement Ex. PE was recorded on the basis of which the case was registered against the appellant and Paramjit Singh accused the police station Saddar, Jullundur.

The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Chawala, ( P.W.1) on December 3 1, 1979. Her medicolegal report is Ex. P.A. She found no external mark of injury on her body or private parts. Two swabs and two slides were prepared and sent for examination of semen but vide Examiner''s report Ex. PB, no spermatozoa was found. In her opinion, from the clinical examination, the possibility of rape could not be ruled.

In his statement under section 3 1 Criminal Procedure Code. 1973, the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication and also produced four witness in defence namely, Sain Dass Circle Patwari Chitti (D. W. 1) who deposed that there was potatoes crop in certain Khasra numbers. Santa Singh (D.W.2) deposed that Pritam Kaur his and she had given land for cultivation to Suchet Singh father jit appellant and that land is situated close to the land of Harbhajan Gurdas Member Panchayat (D.W.3) deposed that he was bringing fodder to the village from the well situated towards the site of villager and on reaching near the boundaries of village Chitti he found Smt. Channo and her daughterinlaw Smt. Balwinder Kaur quarrelling with the accused they had stolen potatoes and the appellant Jit Singh and his coaccused Paramjit were abusing them. Manohar Singh (D.W.4) is a Commissioner (if firm Ram Mohinder Paul. He also supported these offence According to the defence version, the prosecutrix and her motherinlaw had stolen the potatoes and on account of that the appellant his coaccused were falsely implicated.

The prosecution case is supported by Smt. Balwinder Kaur prosecutrix and he motherinlaw Smt. Channo. They have supported the prosecutrix version as given in the earlier part of the judgment but their testimony does not inspire confidence. There is an inordinate delay in reporting the matter to the police. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on December 6, 1979 at 11 A.M. and the matter was reported to the police December 76, 1979 at about 5 P.M. The medical examination also took Police on December 31.1.1979. it is rot understood why so much time was given by the prosecutrix to get herself medically examined. According to the medical evidence, there was no external marks of injuries on the body or Private parts, of the prosecutrix. On her vaginal examination, vulva major aid minor were normal. There was old hymen tear. Two, swabs and two slides prepared from discharge from cervix and posterior fornix mere taken and sent for examination of semen. Uterus, on examination was multiparous size. No evidence of recent rave was found from the Chemical Examiners report as no spermatozoa was found on the swabs and slides. According to the medical evidence no stiff resistance is Proved as there was no external or internal mark of injury on the person of the prosecutrix. In view of the medical evidence, I am of the view that it is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was raped by the appellant. Reference may be made to Tuka Ram and v. State of Maharashtra, [1978 Criminal Appeals Reporter 431 : 1978 C.L.R. (S.C.) 290.

For the reasons recorded, I am of the view that it is not safe to maintain the conviction of the appellant the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable do not the result the appeal succeeds. The conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court is set aside. The appellant is or, bail and his bail bons shall stand discharged. Narinder Pai is the Statistical Assistant of the office of Civil Surgeon, who proved the birth entry of the prosecutrix where she was shown Jogindro daughter of Gulzari. According to this entry, her date of birth 18.11.1965. P.W.5 Balwinder Kaur, prosecutrix narrated P.W.6 the occurrence as reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment. Gulzari, the father of the prosecutrix who supported the version forth the prosecutrix and proved her statement made before, A.S.I. Rishi Dev, D. W.7, who was the investigating officer. He also arrested the accusedappellant Swabs sent to the Chemical Examiner by Dr. Asha Gupta, P.W. I were found to be semen stained, vide his report Exhibit PH.