Puran Singh and Another vs State of Bihar

A.S. Anand, C.J.I., R.C. Lahoti and Ashok Bhan, JJ.—These two appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Patna dated 5.1.2000 whereby Appellants Puran Singh and his wife Lakhbir Kaur (Crl. Appeal No. 622 of 2000) were convicted for an offence u/s 368, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo five years R.I. each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months. Appellant Kamlesh Puryank (Crl. Appeal No. 976/2000) was convicted for offences under Sections 366 and 366A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000 on each of the two counts. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and in default of payment of fine, Appellant was required to undergo R.I. for a further period of two years.

In short, prosecution case is that on 8.2.1989 informant P.W. 8 then aged about 15 years and studying in matriculation class had gone to the house of her brother to watch a marriage ceremony taking place in the neighbourhood of her brother. After watching the marriage ceremony, while she was returning home, Appellant Kamlesh Puryank invited her to have a look at his paintings. On being so allured, she went to his house to see the paintings and while she was in the process of seeing the paintings, one Narendra Singh appeared there with a mask and caught hold of her. It is further the case of the prosecution that the informant was confined to a room and made to swallow a tablet by said Narendra Singh, who was identified by her when his mask fell off during scuffle. She was also administered an injection whereafter she became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, she found herself at a different place. The mother, sister and a daughter of the sister of Narendra Singh were present at that place. The informant remained there for about 10-12 days. According to her, Narendra Singh forcibly smeared vermilion on scalp and pronounced that he had married her. She was then taken in a white car to Haidargarh in Uttar Pradesh. It is also the prosecution case that the house where she was taken in Haidargarh, Sardar Puran Singh and his wife (Appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 622 of 2000) were living. The room in which the informant was confined at the house of Puran Singh had its windows covered with plastic sheets by Puran Singh. She stayed for about 5 months in that room, where according to the informant P.W. 8 Narendra Singh committed rape on her on several occasions. From Haidargarh, the informant was taken to Jagrawan in district Ludhiana to the house of an advocate where again she was confined to a room and Narendra Singh had sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. It was at Jagrawan that her brother Sahendra Singh (P.W. 7) along with his two friends arrived followed by Kamlesh Puryank (Appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 976 of 2000), on 27th September, 1989. They took her back to her house reaching there on 28th September, 1989. Her statement was recorded on 4th October, 1989 on the basis of which a first information report was registered at Dehri police station. After completion of investigation, the Appellants as well as Narendra Singh were charged for commission of offences under Sections 366, 366A, 376 and 368, Indian Penal Code Narendra Singh, however, absconded and was not put up for trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses besides the informant P.W. 8, her brother and mother. After recording evidence, the trial court convicted the Appellants for various offences as already noticed. Their appeal against conviction and sentence in the High Court failed. Hence, these appeals by special leave.

We shall first take up the case of Appellants Puran Singh and his wife Lakhbir Kaur (Appellants in Crl. Appeal No. 622 of 2000). The entire evidence against them revolves around the statement made by the informant P.W. 8. According to her, she was taken to Haidargarh in a car by Narendra Singh who was accompanied by his mother and sister as also daughter of his sister. There she was confined in a room in the house of Puran Singh where the windows had been covered by plastic sheets. She stayed in that room for almost 5 months.

The sine qua non for attracting provisions of Section 368, Indian Penal Code is that a person who either wrongfully conceals or confines the victim, must have the knowledge that, the victim had been kidnapped or had been abducted and on proof of that, the accused can be punished in the same manner as if he had kidnapped or abducted the victim with the same intention or knowledge, or for the same purpose as that with which he concealed or detained the victim. In vain have we searched through the record for any allegation, let alone proof that either of the Appellants knew that P.W. 8 had been kidnapped or abducted by Narendra Singh. It is not the case of P.W. 8, the informant that she had told so at any point of time to either Puran Singh or his wife. The prosecution has also, while recording the statement of these two Appellants u/s 313, Criminal Procedure Code, not put to them that either of them had knowledge that P.W. 8 had been kidnapped or abducted, and with that knowledge, they had wrongfully concealed or confined P.W. 8 in their room. There is no material at all on the record which can bring home the guilt of the Appellants Puran Singh and Lakhbir Kaur for on offence u/s 368, Indian Penal Code Even if it be assumed for the sake of arguments, that P.W. 8 was taken to the house of Puran Singh and confined there in a room by Narendra Singh, the possibility that Puran Singh and his wife thought that P.W. 8 was in fact the wife of Narendra Singh cannot be ruled out. According to the prosecutrix herself, she had gone to the house of Puran Singh with sindoor in the parting of her hair. He, therefore, could have no reason even to suspect that P.W. 8 had either been kidnapped or abducted. In the absence of any evidence to connect these two Appellants with the requisite knowledge, their conviction and sentence for an offence u/s 368, Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. Both the Appellants are, therefore, entitled to be given benefit of doubt, which we do hereby give them. Consequently, their appeal succeeds. Their conviction and sentence are set aside. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Fine, if any, paid by them shall be refunded to them.

Coming now to the case of Appellant Kamlesh Puryank (Crl. Appeal No. 976 of 2000). According to the prosecution case, this Appellant is the one who lured informant P.W. 8 to his house where she was over-powered by Narendra Singh who then kidnapped or abducted her. We have already noticed that it was Narendra Singh who according to the prosecution case forcibly married her and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent at different places during the period of almost 8 months. That the prosecutrix was below the age of 16 years is not in doubt in view of the evidence provided by an extract from the admission register (Exhibits 4, 4A and 4B), which disclosed that her date of birth was 10.12.1975. However, Narendra Singh has absconded and has not been tried. According to the prosecution case, he is the main culprit who not only forcibly married a minor but also subjected her to rape on numerous occasions. So far as the Appellant Kamlesh Puryank is concerned, the statement of the informant is clear as regards role played by him in facilitating Narendra Singh to elope with her, marry her and commit rape on her. P.W. 8 has stood the test of cross-examination well insofar as the role of this Appellant is concerned. As per material on record, we are satisfied that so far as Appellant Kamlesh Puryank is concerned, his complicity in the commission of offence has been amply established beyond every reasonable doubt. The conviction of the Appellant thus for offences under Sections 366 and 366A, Indian Penal Code is clearly borne out from the record and well merited. However, so far as sentence is concerned, looking to the role ascribed to him by the prosecution, in our opinion, the sentence awarded to him appears to be excessive. We, accordingly, reduce the sentence of imprisonment to a period of two years R.I. on each of the two counts. Both the sentences shall, however, run concurrently. The sentence of fine as imposed by the High Court is, however, maintained. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant shall undergo R.I. for a further period of six months. To this limited extent, the appeal of Appellant Kamlesh Puryank is allowed.