Case: Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana

The factual position on which the prosecution version is founded, commences with the passing of information by Savitri Devi (the mother of the prosecutrix VW - PW6), to her husband Jagdish Chander-PW8, on 26.3.1993, at about 6 am. She informed her husband, that the prosecutrix VW - PW6 was missing from their residence. In this behalf it would be pertinent to mention, that on 25.3.1993 at about 10 pm, Jagdish Chander went to sleep in the(drawing room) of their residence. Savitri Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix VW - PW6, along with the prosecutrix VW - PW6, and the other children (comprising of three sons, the prosecutrix VW – PW6 and one other daughter), went to sleep in the other rooms of the house. Savitri Devi, told her husband, that she suspected the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh, may be responsible for having taken away their daughter.2. Jagdish Chander-PW8, commenced to search for his daughter. During the course of the aforesaid search, the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh, who had his residence in the neighbourhood (of Jagdish Chander-PW8), was also found missing from his residence. The search for the prosecutrix VW - PW6 by her father, proved futile. It is therefore, that Jagdish Chander-PW8, made a complaint Exhibit PO on 27.3.1993 to the Sub-Inspector Incharge, Police Post, Jathlana. In his complaint, he described VW - PW6, as the elder of his two daughters. He gave out her age as about 16 years. He also alleged, that his daughter VW - PW6 had gone missing from their residence in the night intervening 25th and 26th March, 1993. He also alleged, that an amount of Rs.3,000/- was missing from his house, which he assumed may have been taken away by his daughter VW - PW6, while leaving the house. In the complaint Exhibit PO, the needle of suspicion was pointed at the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh.3. After the registration of the complaint of Jagdish Chander-PW8, the prosecutrix VW - PW6 was recovered on 29.3.1983, from the custody of the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh, from the house of Shashi Bhan at Raipur in district Haridwar. The accused-appellant simultaneously came to be arrested, on 29.3.1993.4. The statement of the prosecutrix VW - PW6 was got recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before O.P. Verma, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhri on 6.4.1993. It is necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case to extract herein her short statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is being reproducedthat on the night of 25.3.1993 at around 11 pm, I went to a street near my house to answercall. Accused Jarnail Singh and his three accomplices were hiding there. When I got up after answeringcall, then they caught hold of me and inhaled me something by cloth, due to which, I got unconscious. They took me to some unknown place in U.P. by putting me in some vehicle. There they took me to a room.JarnailSingh, forcibly committed wrong (intercourse) with me. I slapped on his face, then he put cloth in my mouth. Therefore, I could not raise noise. Thereafter, everyone committed forcible intercourse with me, turn by turn. Huge blood came out of my vagina, and I felt a lot of pain. Thereafter, police caught us and handed over me to my parents.On completion of investigation, a challan was presented under Sections 366, 376 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, Jagadhri, whereupon, it was marked to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri framed charges on 20.12.1993. The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.6. In order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused-appellant, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh, was then recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegations levelled against him, and pleaded false implication. Despite opportunity having been afforded to him, the accused-appellant did not lead any evidence, in his defence.7. It is necessary to record, that on the culmination of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri arrived at the conclusion, that the prosecution had been able to bring home the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, under Sections 366, 376(g) and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-appellant Jarnail Singh was accordingly held guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri gave an opportunity of hearing to the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh on the question of sentence. Thereupon, for the offence under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code the accused-appellant was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, he was also required to pay a fine of Rs.200/- (in case of default in payment of fine, the accused-appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months). For the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused-appellant was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and was required to pay a fine of Rs.150/- (in case of default in payment of fine, the accused-appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months). And for the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, the accused-appellant was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and was required to pay a fine of Rs.150/- (in case of default in payment of fine, the accused-appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months). The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.8. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 14.3.1995, rendered by the trial Court, the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh preferred Criminal Appeal no. 247-SB of 1995 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court). The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant on 4.11.2008. The judgment of conviction dated 14.3.1995 and the order of sentence dated 15.3.1995 (rendered by the trial Court i.e., the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri) were upheld.9. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court dated 14.3.1995 and that of the appellate Court dated 4.11.2008, the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh approached this Court. On 7.7.2010, this Court granted leave, in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no. 7836 of 2009, filed by the accused-appellant. Having traversed the aforesaid course, the instant criminal appeal has finally been placed before us, for adjudication.

Court's reasoning:
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above noted submission, advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. We, however, find no merit therein. It is not as if the prosecution version is entirely based on the statement of the prosecutrix VW - PW6. It would be relevant to mention, that her recovery from the custody of the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh from the house of Shashi Bhan, at Raipur, is sought to be established from the statement of Moti Ram-PW3. There can therefore be no room for any doubt, that after she was found missing from herresidence on 25.3.1993, and after her father Jagdish Chandra-PW8 had made a complaint to the police on 27.3.1993, she was recovered from the custody of the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh. Thereafter, the prosecutrix VW - PW6 was subjected to medico-legal examination by Dr. Kanta Dhankar-PW1 on 29.3.1993 itself at 3.00 p.m. Dr. Kanta Dhankar-PW1, in her independent testimony, affirmed that she had been subjected to sexual intercourse, inasmuch as her hymen was found ruptured. Even though the visual examination of the prosecutrix VW – PW6, during the course of her medico-legal examination did not reveal the presence of semen or blood, yet the report of the forensic science laboratory (Exhibit PL) and of the Serologist (Exhibit PL/1) clearly establish the presence of semen on her salwar, underwear and pubic hair. Thereport also disclose, medium and small blood stains on herIn her own deposition, she had mentioned that, when she was raped by the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh and his accomplices, bleeding had taken place and she had felt pain, and her clothes were stained with blood. Her deposition stands scientifically substantiated by Exhibits PL and PL/1. The suggestion put to the prosecutrix VW – PW6 at the behest of the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh, during the course of her cross-examination, that she had accompanied the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh, of her own free will and had had sexual intercourse with him consensually, leaves no room for any doubt, that she was in his company, and that, he had had sexual intercourse with her. The assertion that the prosecutrix VW – PW6 had accompanied the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh, and had had sexual intercourse with him consensually is completely ruled out, because as per the substantiated prosecution version, the prosecutrix VW - PW6 was not taken away by the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh alone, but also, by his three accomplices. All the four of them had similarly violated her person. Additionally, in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the prosecutrix VW - PW6 had asserted, that in the first instance, after having caught hold of her, the accused had made her inhale something from a cloth which had made her unconscious. Thereafter, when the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh attempted to commit intercourse with her, she had slapped him. He had then put a cloth in her mouth, to stop her from raising an alarm. Thereafter, each one of the accomplices had committed forcible intercourse with her in turns. The factum of commission of forcible intercourse by the accused-appellant, as also, his accomplices was reiterated by her during her testimony before the Trial Court as PW6. Besides the aforesaid, there is a statement of her own father, Jagdish Chandra (PW8) who also in material particulars had corroborated the testimony of the prosecutrix VW - PW6. The prosecutrix VW – PW6, was not subjected to cross-examination on any of these issues. Nor was the prosecutrix confronted with either the statements made by her under Section 161 or Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Prosecution, so as to enable her to explain discrepancies, if any. Therefore, we find no merit at all, in the submission advanced by the learned counsel. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied that there was substantial material corroborating the statement of the prosecutrix VW - PW6, for an unequivocal determination of the guilt of the accused-appellant Jarnail Singh.