Sushil Kumar vs State of Punjab

Viney Mittal, J.—The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Sushil Kumar challenging the judgment dated November 6, 1989 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment u/s 376 IPC. The appellant has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years u/s 366 IPC.

The prosecution version is that on June 16, 1988 Roshan Lal brother of Anju Bala was asleep in his house. His wife Sudesh Rani was also present. Around 3.00 p.m., Anju Bala, prosecutrix went to the house of her friend Rubi. Earlier also she had been visiting the house of her friend Rubi, but on that day she did not return back till late in the evening. Roshan Lal and his family members searched Anju Bala in the town and thereafter in the houses of their relatives but she was not traceable. Thereafter, Roshan Lal suspected that their neighbour Parshotam Lal son of Hushiar Singh, who was not present in his house, had kidnapped her. Subsequently, a wireless message was received from the Deputy Commissioner Police West, Delhi to the effect that the aforesaid Anju Bala alongwith Sushil Kumar accused and Ram Dhani accused had been arrested in connection with FIR No. 290 dated June 18, 1988 u/s 294 IPC, registered at Police Station Rajauri Garden, Delhi. The police brought the aforesaid Sushil Kumar to Ludhiana. He was go medically examined. Ultimately, it was found that the aforesaid Sushil Kumar had abducted Anju Bala who was a minor being 16 years of age and had committed rape upon her. Accordingly, the appellant alongwith Ram Dhani was tried under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376 IPC. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Judge acquitted Ram Dhani but found that Sushil Kumar was guilty of the offences for which he was charged. Accordingly, he was convicted under Sections 366/376 IPC and sentenced as aforesaid.

I have heard Shri D.S. Keer, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Sandeep Jain, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent and with their assistance have also gone through the record.

In my considered opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts by leading cogent evidence. Anju Bala prosecutrix has appeared as PW4. She has given a detailed account of her kidnapping and rape. She has specifically stated that at the relevant time she was the student of 7th class and that accused Sushil Kumar was known to her because he was living in a house at the back of their house in Indra colony, Ludhiana. Whenever she would go out of her house, the aforesaid Sushil Kumar would make gestures to her. In fact, a bare perusal of the statement of Anju Bala shows not only that she has supported the prosecution version with regard to her kidnapping but also proved the factum of she having been raped by Sushil Kumar. The age of the prosecutrix Anju Bala stands duly proved by the prosecution by producing her school certificate Ex.PB on the record. In this view of the matter, the conviction as recorded by the learned trial Judge calls for no interference and is hereby maintained.

Faced with this difficulty, Shri Keer, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the aforesaid occurrence had taken place in the year 1988 when the present appellant Sushil Kumar was merely 17 years of age. Although, Shri Keer tried to plead that there was a consent between the parties but because of the fact that the age of the prosecutrix Anju Bala is shown to be less than 16 years, therefore, the aforesaid plea is not naturally available to the learned counsel for the appellant.

Under these circumstances, Shri Keer has submitted that a lenient view of the matter be taken. It is also submitted by Shri Keer that the appellant has already faced long and protracted criminal proceedings. Even the present criminal appeal has remained pending in this Court or a period of more than 13 years.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to this plea of Shri Keer. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant Sushil Kumar is reduced to two years u/s 376 IPC and 6 months u/s 366 IPC. Both the aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently.

With the aforesaid observations and modification, the aforesaid criminal appeal stands disposed of.