Crl.Appeal No.383-SB of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Appeal No.383-SB of 1996 Date of decision:4.4.2008 Ram Kumar ....Appellant Versus U.T.Chandigarh ....Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr. D.V.Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Standing Counsel for U.T. A.N.JINDAL J. The accused/appellant, Ram Kumar(hereinafter referred to as the accused) was convicted under Sections 342, 376, read with Section 511 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC, and also RI for six months under Section 342 IPC. Kamroo Nisha, complainant as well as the accused are dwellers. On 19.2.1993, at about 10.30 PM, after doing the festival work for Shivratri Bhandara, i.e., community dinner, when she came to her house, she found the door bolted from inside. But the light was on. Despite knocking, the door was not opened. After knocking the door a lot, the door was opened and the accused came running outside and escaped. When she entered her cottage, she found Afsar Jahan(hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix), her daughter in naked condition and perplexed. She narrated the story of being raped by the accused. She disclosed to the complainant that when she entered her cottage, the accused also made his forcible entry. Crl.Appeal No.383-SB of 1996 2 She was asked to sit in his lap. Thereafter, he removed his kachhi and raped her. On the aforesaid statement made by the complainant, Ex.PA/1, FIR, Ex.P1 was registered. Consequently, the police came in action. Case was investigated and the accused was challaned. The accused was charged under Sections 342, 376 read with Section 511 IPC. The prosecution in support of its case has examined Dr. S.P.Gupta(Radiologist) PW1, Dr.Gurdip Kaur(Gynacologist)PW2, Dr. M.P.Singh(regarding medical examination of accused Ram Kumar), PW3, Smt.Janak Dulari Malhotra, Head Teacher(regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix), PW4, Sh.Gulab Singh(regarding date of birth of the prosecutrix), PW5, H.C.Inder Pal Singh(Photographer), PW6, Jaswant Singh(Head Draftsman), PW7, Sub Inspector Shiv Raj Joshi(regarding complaint Ex.P1), PW8, Constable Puran Singh(to prove the copy of the formal FIR, PW9, Mohinder Singh, Head Constable (of affidavit Ex.PK), PW10, Constable Daljit Singh(of affidavit Ex.PL), PW11, Constable Som Nath(of affidavit Ex.PF), PW12, Chand Singh, Head Constable (regarding DDR), PW13, Satya Devi, Constable, PW14, Afsar Jahan(prosecutrix), PW17, Kamroo Nisha(Complainant), PW15, Tarsem Lal(neighobour of the complainant), PW16 and Sub Inspector Ram Singh(Investigating Officer), PW18. When examined under Section 313, IPC, the accused denied all the allegations and implied false implication in the case. There is no denying a fact that the prosecutrix was only 8 years old when she fell prey at the hands of the accused who made her subject to his evil designs and lust for sex. Her testimony stands corroborated by Dr. Gurdip Kaur, PW2 who had medically examined her. The prosecutrix Crl.Appeal No.383-SB of 1996 3 withstood the test of competency and gave minute details of the occurrence and also the complainant who saw the accused coming out of the jhuggi when she got opened the door. The chain of events being very vividly and sanctity explained by the Investigating Officer, PW18, Ram Singh who also got the place photographed and proved the photographs, P13 to P16. His deposition is in conformity with the stand of the prosecution. No plausible defence has been set up or proved by the accused in order to establish his innocence. I have no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix and other corroborative evidence placed on record. Having examined the impugned judgment, it is observed that the trial Court gave vivid details of the evidence as rightly put forward by the prosecution. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 4.4.2008 (A.N.JINDAL) sailesh JUDGE