JAMIL AHMAD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(P&H)-2010-10-128
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on October 15,2010

JAMIL AHMAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SRIBATCHA KUMAR V. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
BISHNUDAS V. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ MOHAN SINGH VS. PRIYA BRAT NARAIN SINHA [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP MISRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
TUKARAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG SITARAM BHAGWAT VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MUSAUDDIN AHMED VS. STATE OF ASSAM [REFERRED TO]
TAMEEZUDDIN ALIAS TAMMU VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
BALASAHEB VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BALKHTAUR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
AVDESH VS. STATE OF HARAYANA [REFERRED TO]
MOLU RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SUBEG SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-45] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 1/2.11.2007 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad (hereinafter referred as "trial Court"), convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.)The brief facts of the case are that a written complaint, Exhibit PK, was received by the police from the prosecutrix, stating that she was a student of 5th class and was 14 years of age. On 29.01.2007, she went to school at 7.00 a.m. but since the school was closed, she started back for home. When she reached near dharamshala, three/four boys caught hold of her and made her to smell something, as a result of which, she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness after 4/5 hours, she recognized one of the boys as Jamil i.e., the present appellant, who was a resident of her colony. She did not know the other boys. On the basis of this complaint, a case for offences punishable under Sections 328, 342, 363, 366-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
(3.)On 2.2.2007, the prosecutrix made another statement that she was frightened and could not give the correct version. It was stated that when she was returning from school, Jamil son of Kallu asked her to sit on his motor-cycle. He threatened her not to raise any alarm or to jump from the motor-cycle and was taken to a lonely old building in Sector-2, Ballabgarh, where she was raped. Thereafter, the appellant left her at Anaj Mandi, Ballabgarh, at about 1.00 p.m. She then returned home and narrated the incident to her family.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.