Paramjit Singh @ Pamma vs State of Punjab

Jora Singh, J.—Paramjit Singh @ Pamma son of Jangir Singh, preferred this appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.1.2004, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ferozepur in Sessions Case No. 128 of 1.5.2003, arising out of FIR No. 4 dated 10.1.2003, registered under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Guruhar Sahai.

By the said judgment, he was convicted u/s 376 IPC and was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and half years.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.1.2003 ASI Kewal Singh alongwith Police Party was present at Bus Stand Pindi where prosecutrix alongwith her husband Jagdish Singh and Sarpanch Banta Singh had met the party. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. Prosecutrix stated that on the intervening night of 7/8.1.2003 at about 12/12:30 O''clock she alongwith her husband and children was sleeping in the house. Electric bulb was on in the courtyard. She came out to urinate, Pamma son of Bir Singh was found present in the Courtyard. He caught hold of her and she was raped against her wish. Her mouth was gagged but by removing his hand, she raised raula. Her husband came at the spot and gave soti blow on the head of Pamma. Pamma after committing crime had fled away from the spot. Next day, they had reported the matter to the Panchayat. Panchayat made an effort to effect compromise but there was no compromise. After recording the statement of the prosecutrix, statement was sent to the Police Station on the basis of which formal FIR was registered.

Prosecutrix was produced before the doctor and was medico-legally examined. Accused was also arrested and was produced before doctor for medico-legal examination. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

Accused was charged u/s 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined number of witnesses.

PW1 is the prosecutrix. She has reiterated her stand before the police.

PW2 Jagdish is the husband of the prosecutrix and supported her version by saying that he alongwith prosecutrix and children was sleeping in the house. Electric light was on in the courtyard. During night time, his wife had gone to urinate. She was caught hold by the accused in the courtyard and was raped against her wish. On hearing raula, he woke up and had seen the accused while committing rape on her. A soti was lying in the courtyard and with that soti he had given blow on the head of the accused but accused managed to escape from the spot. On the next day, the matter was reported to the Panchayat. Efforts were made to compromise the matter but there was no compromise. Then report was lodged with the police.

PW3 ASI Kewal Singh is the Investigating Officer.

PW4 Dr. Balkar Singh stated that on 2.3.2003 Paramjit @ Pamma was medico-legally examined and after examination he was found fit to perform sexual intercourse.

PW5 HC Vijay Kumar tendered his affidavit Ex.P6.

PW6 Dr. Inderdhir Gill stated that on 10.1.2003, prosecutrix was medico-legally examined and observed as under:

Patient was fully conscious, moderately built, moderately nourished. Well oriented to time, place and person, pulse was 86 p.m, B.P 120/80 mm, Injuries were as follows:

There was bruise, bluish in colour .10x5 cm in size on the outer side of the left leg.

PW7 HC Sukhpal Singh tendered his affidavit Ex.P9.

After close of prosecution evidence, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. P.C was recorded. He denied all the allegations of the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.

Defence version of the accused was that he was falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.

Opportunity was given to Appellant to lead defence evidence but no evidence was led in defence.

After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for State, learned defence counsel for the accused and from the perusal of evidence available on file, Appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned State counsel and carefully gone through the evidence available on file.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that in view of the custody certificate, Appellant was released from jail after expiry of sentence and deposit of fine. In view of the certificate, appeal be disposed of.

State counsel states that prosecutrix was raped against her wish. Occurrence was witnessed by husband of the prosecutrix. Next day, matter was brought to the notice of the Panchayat and efforts were made to compromise the matter but there was no compromise. Then on 10.1.2003, matter was reported to the police. Delay stands fully explained. Simple allegation of the Appellant that due to enmity, he was falsely implicated in this case but regarding enmity, no evidence on file. No suggestion was put to the prosecutrix and her husband that there was previous enmity. Evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court.

As per custody certificate, Appellant was released from jail after expiry of sentence on 6.12.2006. Fine was also deposited at jail gate. Even then I want to scrutinize the evidence as to whether prosecution story inspires confidence or not.

Prosecutrix appeared as PW1 and categorically stated that on the intervening night of 7/8.1.2003, she alongwith her husband and children was sleeping in her house. During night time, she had gone outside in the courtyard to urinate. Electric light was on in the courtyard. Appellant was found present there. She was caught hold by the Appellant and was raped against her wish. Her mouth was gagged by the Appellant but by removing the hand of the Appellant, she raised raula. On hearing raula, her husband came outside and gave soti blow to the Appellant but Appellant had managed to fled away from the spot. Next day, matter was brought to the notice of the Panchayat and an effort was made to effect compromise but there was no compromise. Then matter was brought to the notice of police. She was produced before the doctor and was medico-legally examined.

Dr. Inderdhir Gill appeared as PW6 and stated that prosecutrix was medico-legally examined on 10.1.2003.

Husband of the prosecutrix also appeared and stated that Appellant was seen while raping his wife. He had given soti blow on the head of Appellant but Appellant had managed to fled away from the spot. Ex.P10 is the report of the Laboratory and report is to the effect that human semen was noticed in case of vaginal swabs.

Appellant was also medico-legally examined and was found fit to perform sexual intercourse.

Defence version of the Appellant was that he was falsely implicated due to previous enmity, but regarding previous enmity, no evidence either oral or documentary on the file. No suggestion to the prosecutrix that she was inimical towards the Appellant. Husband of the prosecutrix appeared as PW2 but again no suggestion to Jagdish Singh that there was a previous enmity amongst the parties. When there was no previous enmity then there was no reason to leave the real culprit and name the Appellant. Statement of the prosecutrix coupled with the statement of her husband and doctor shows that prosecution story inspires confidence.

Occurrence was on the intervening night of 7/8.1.2003 whereas the FIR is dated 10.1.2003 but prosecution story is that on 9.1.2003, the matter was brought to the notice of Panchayat, efforts were made to effect compromise but there was no compromise, then on 10.1.2003, report was lodged with police. In case, allegation of the prosecution was not correct one then Panch, Sarpanch or Lamberdar could easily be produced in defence that there was no Panchayat. At the time of lodging report with the police, Sarpanch was also present with the prosecutrix. When there is a rape then immediately report is not lodged. Prosecutrix thinks twice to lodge report when her reputation and honour of the family was at stake. Prosecutrix was married and was having children. When prosecutrix had no enmity with the Appellant then no question to level false allegation. Nothing on the file to disbelieve the prosecutrix.

At the time of argument, custody certificate was brought by the State counsel and certificate shows that after the expiry of sentence, Appellant was released from jail on 6.12.2006. Fine was also deposited.

In view of all discussed above, I am of the opinion that evidence on file was rightly scrutinized by the trial Court. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and the same is upheld.

For the reasons recorded above, appeal without merits is dismissed.