Sunehra Singh vs State of Haryana

Harbans Singh Rai, J.

Sunehra Singh was convicted under sections 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Additional Sessions Judge

(II), Jind and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs 500/ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months under the former charge and R.I. for three years and a fine of Rs. 500/ or in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months under the latter charge. The substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. It has also been directed that out of the fine, if recovered, Saneh Prabha prosecutrix be paid Rs. 900/. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.

The prosecution case is that in the year 1982 Harbans Lal (PW4), father of Saneh Prabha, prosecutrix (PW5), was posted as a teacher at Government School, Khunga Kothi. Accused Sunehra Singh was also working as a chowkidar in that school in those days. Due to this, the accused used to visit the house of Harbans Lal and started taking fancy of Sneh Prabha. His visits resulted in his intimacy with her. Harbans Lal use to reside at Patiala Chowk, Jind, during those days. On 581982 when he and his wife, who was also a teacher, had gone on their duties the appellant came to their house at about 11 a.m., and asked the prosecutrix to accompany him to the bus stand. On enquiry by her, he told that life at Jind was not good. While accompanying him, the prosecutrix took Rs. 2,000/. cash, gold ornaments, attachi case and a number of clothes with her. They went in a rickshaw to the bus stand from where they boarded a bus for Delhi and from Delhi, they went to Rajgarh (Madhya Pradesh) by train. At Raigarh, the appellant rented a house belonging to Ganesh Ram (PW 11) at Rs. 20/ per month and started, residing their with Saneh Lata. During their stay in that house, the appellant committed sexual intercourse with Saneh Prabha almost daily, which, according to her, was against the her wishes.

Manohar Lal (PW 17) who is maternal uncle of Sneh Prabhu on learning that she was at Rajgarh, went there. He submitted an application to Sub Inspector Jani Ram Druv on 22.6.1984 and the said SubInspector raided the house of Ganesh Ram and recovered the appellant and the prosecutrix from there. After arresting the appellant, the said, Sub Inspector produced him before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh. Snesh Prabha, was also produced before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh.

On the disappearance of Sneh Prabha prosecutrix, Harbans Lal tried to trace her, but not finding her. he lodged the First Information Report with the police which is Ex. PA/2. As the appellant was not traceable he was declared a proclaimed offender by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind. On coming to know about the arrest of the appellant, Sub Inspector

Om Parkash (PW9) went to Raigarh on 17.7.1984 and arrested him in this case and brought him to Jind. After completion of investigation the appellant was challaned, tried, convicted and sentenced as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

The appellant has been convicted under sections 376 and'' 366 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Sneh Prabha, rape was committed on her in Raigarh. There in no allegation that any rape was committed on her at Jind or anywhere in Haryana. His conviction under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be maintained, as there is no allegation of any rape in the Jind district. He is acquitted of the charge under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the prosecutrix carried with her cash, gold ornaments, attachi case and clothes from her parental house and went with the appellant to Rajgarh where they both stayed as husband and wife for about two years before her recovery by ''the Police. The trial Court has found that she is less than 16 years of age and as she is minor, her consent does not absolve the appellant of the offence. It is true that technically speaking, the offence u/s 366 I.P.C. is made out as the prosecutrix is about 16 years of age, but the circumstances in this case clearly show that was appellant and the prosecutrix had developed liking for each other and she went with him willingly to Rajgarh; stayed there as his wife for two years and in these circumstances, the gravity of the charge framed against him is lessened.

Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the appellant deserves leniency in the sentence. Shri D. S. Bali, Senior Advocate, states at the bar that the appellant has undergone more than five months of actual sentence. The appellant is on bail for the last many years. In my view, the ends of justice would be squarely met if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the one already undergone by him. Hence, it is ordered accordingly. The appeal stands disposed of with the modification in the matter of sentence, as indicated above.