Paramjit Singh vs The State of Punjab <BR> Sukhdev Singh Vs Paramjit Singh

R.S. Madan, J.—This order of mine shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 922-SB of 1998 and Criminal Revision bearing No. 37 of 1999, which have arisen out of the judgment dated 26.8.1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant Paramjit Singh as under:

Under Section 376(2)(C) IPC.

RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for a period of two months.

Under Section 342 IPC RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month.

Under Section 506 IPC RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

In brief, the facts of the case are that Sukhdev Singh son of Bachan Singh, resident of Village Khokher Kalan, Tehsil and District Mansa suffered a statement Ex.PD, before the police wherein he stated that he has one son and two daughters. His eldest daughter Inderjit Kaur(hereinafter to be referred to as the prosecutrix) aged about 15 years was studying in 8th class in Khokher Kalan High School. Paramjit Singh accused was the Incharge of the said class. He was maintaining his residence at Mansa. It was on 20.05.1997 at about 2 P.M. when the school was closed, Paramjit Singh accused asked Inderjit Kaur that after keeping her basta in the house, she should bring some ice. The prosecutrix after leaving her bag at the house at about 2.30 PM took the ice to a separate room of the accused allotted to him in the High School. It is alleged that in that room some sports goods and Diwan were also lying there. At that time Lal Singh, Member Panchayat and Sukhdev Singh son of Labh Singh, residents of Village Khokher Kalan were sitting on the culvert of the distributary and they saw the prosecutrix entering the room of the accused in the school premises. When the prosecutrix did not return back for about half an hour, they went to the school and knocked the door of the room of the accused. The accused open the door of the room to a little extent and went out. While leaving the room he locked the same from outside. On hearing the voice of Lal Singh and Sukhdev Singh, the prosecutrix raised alarm that she be saved. Both Lal Singh and Sukhdev Singh then broke open the lock and took out the prosecutrix and she was brought to her house. At the house she narrated the occurrence to her father that the accused under the influence of liquor called her to the room to bring ice and committed the act of coitus without her consent and threatend her that if she disclosed this incident to any one she would be done to death. The matter was brought to the notice of the Panchayat but no action was taken. Thereafter a report was lodged with the police. The statement which was made before the police by the complainant was read over and explained to him who after admitting the same to be true and correct, appended his signatures thereon. On the basis of the said statement, the Sub Inspector made endorsement thereon and got the first information report lodged with the police. After the recording of the FIR, Avtar Singh Sub Inspector went to the place of occurrence; prepared the visual site plan and collected material from the spot vide various recovery memos. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. The prosecutrix was sent to Dr. Jaswinder Kaur, who medico legally examined the prosecutrix and found that she was subjected to sexual intercourse. On 24.5.1997 Dr. Vikas Kumar Singla of Civil Hospital, Mansa medico legally examined the accused and opined that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was unable to perform the sexual intercourse. After the completion of the investigation of the case, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.

After going through the report u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charge under Sections 376(2)(c) 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PW-1 Dr. Jaswinder Kaur, Medical Officer, PHC Budhlada, who medico legally examined the prosecutrix on 23.5.1997 at about 5.10 PM and found that there were tears on hymen and semen in process as their colour was reddish. These tears could be caused due to sexual intercourse. She proved the original MLR. On receipt of the report Ex.PC from the Chemical Examiner, it was revealed that there was no spermatozoa on vaginal swab and slides respectively.

PW-2, Sukhdev Singh is the complainant and he fully supported the prosecution version described in the earlier part of the judgment.

PW-3, Dr. Vijay Kumar Singla, Medical Officer, medico legally examined Paramjit Singh son of Jarnail Singh, and opined that there was nothing to suggest that the accused was unable to do sexual intercourse. He proved Ex.PE the carbon copy of the MLR and Ex.PF request made by the police for medical examination of accused Paramjit Singh.

PW-4 is the prosecutrix, who supported the prosecution case.

PW-5 Gurmail Singh from the office of Civil Surgeon, Mansa produced the Births register relating to the year 1982. He proved the true copy of the entry Ex.PF of the register which he had brought. He also proved the birth certificate Ex.PF/1, which was issued by the Additional Registrar Births and Deaths, Mansa. The date of birth of the prosecutrix as per the birth certificate Ex.PF/1 is 11.9.1982.

PW-6 Avtar Singh is the investigating officer of this case who after completing all the requisite formalities, put up the challan against the accused.

The Public Prosecutor, after giving up Sukhdev Singh, as having been won over by the accused, tendered into evidence the affidavits of formal witnesses, closed the evidence of the prosecution.

When examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused were put to him, to which he pleaded innocence and false implication. He further pleaded that Des Raj Chowkidar and his wife along with two adult sons and one adult daughter were residing near the room in question in the school. After the school was closed the children do play there. He further stated that he opposed Paramjit Singh Sarpanch of the Village Khokher Kalan in the elections. The said Paramjit Singh had sold trees of the school and he informed the villagers and the concerned department that the Sarpanch had embezzled the sale price of the trees. He further stated that he was having a dispute regarding land with Paramjit Singh. Sukhdev Singh father of the prosecutrix was under the influence of said Paramjit Singh, who in connivance with the police got a false case registered against him. He further pleaded that SDM Mansa and the DEO, Mansa had made an inquiry into the incident before the registration of the case where the prosecutrix did not make any statement against him.

The accused in defence examined Rajinder Kaur Headmistress Govt. High School, Khokher Kalan as DW-1, and Prem Lal, Steno of the court of SDM Mansa, as DW-2 who produced the copy of the report dated 22.5.1997 submitted by Kishan Chand SDM, Mansa.

After going through the evidence of the prosecution and the defence witnesses and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa convicted and sentenced the accused as already indicated above.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence available on the record.

At the very out-set, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant did not challenge the order of conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa. Thus, the conviction recorded by the trial court is up-held.

However, on the quantum of sentence, he prayed for lenience. It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that after the occurrence, the accused-appellant has lost his government job and he is now adays leading a peaceful life. The prosecutrix has already been married and is living a peaceful life with her husband.

The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the accused has been sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa u/s 376(2)(c) of the Indian Penal Code which is not permissible under the law. It was incumbent upon the trial court that while passing the order of sentence to consider that the prosecutrix was 14 years and 8 months old on the date of occurrence and the accused was entitled to the benefit of provisio to Section 376 IPC. Section 376 is reproduced as under:

376:- Punishment for rape.- (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by Sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment for either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the woman raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both:

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.

The learned Counsel for the appellant stated that in the present case, the accused has remained in custody for a period of more than three years and eleven months i.e. from 24.5.1997 to 30.4.2001. The accused is not having any past history of criminality nor after the present occurrence, he has committed any offence. The prosecutrix has since been married and is living with her husband. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar v. The State of Haryana 2006 (2) SCC 308 has reduced the sentence of 7 years RI to 3 years RI u/s 376 IPC. Reference was also made to Dinesh v. State of Haryana 2004(3) Crl. C.C. 383 and 2004(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 815, wherein in the similar circumstances of the case, the Hon''ble High Court has altered the sentence passed by the courts below to the period already undergone.

This Court can further take into consideration that the sword of damocles has been hanging on the head of the appellant for more than 9 years including the period of appeal and the accused is not a previous convict. He is now leading a peaceful life after the commission of the offence. The prosecutrix has by now settled in her life with her husband.

The Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has not opposed the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant with respect to the reduction of sentence from 10 years to the period already undergone by the accused-appellant. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well; as the law cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant, I feel that the ends of justice would be met if the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa is reduced from 10 years to the period already undergone by the appellant.

Except for the modification in the order of sentence, the appeal bearing No. 922-SB of 1998 fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 922-SB of 1998, there is no force in the revision petition filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence in the given circumstances. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.