OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA
LAWS(SC)-2011-7-109
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on July 07,2011

OM PRAKASH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

ANIL AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-237] [REFERRED TO]
ASHPAK LALMOHAMMAD MOHAMMAD ANSARI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-3-211] [REFERRED TO]
SH. J. LALRUATSANGA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
BIKASH PRAMANIK VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-226] [REFERRED TO]
LOKESH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2024-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE FOR NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-5-43] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. UMESHBHAI RAJUBHAI THAKOR AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2014-8-213] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDER SINGH @ THOLU & OTHERS VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-217] [REFERRED TO]
NAYAB VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-10-106] [REFERRED TO]
BIKASH PRAMANIK @ SUBHAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-12-50] [REFERRED TO]
DINESHWAR RAM VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-3-110] [REFERRED TO]
IN MATTER OF MADHURI BANDOONI VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2020-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
SANDIP S/O RAVINDRA TALANDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-7-145] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. KULDEEP KUMAR AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-28] [REFERRED TO]
YUNUS ANSARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2024-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
BABLA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGAR [LAWS(CHH)-2023-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. ROSHAN KHAN [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KISHOR RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-568] [REFERRED TO]
MADHURI BANDOONI VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2020-3-115] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The two accused Om Prakash (hereinafter referred as 'the appellant') and Jai Prakash were committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Jagadhri vide order dated 30th September, 1994 to face trial in the case of Jai Prakash under Sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and in the case of appellant under Sections 368 and 376(2)(g) IPC. Both these accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and faced trial. The prosecution - examined as many as nine witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused in response to the questions posed by the Court disclosing incriminating evidence against the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code'). The appellant denied the incident and stated that he had never known either Jai Prakash or the prosecutrix. Jai Prakash took the stand that he used to visit the house of one Bhagwan Dass and there was enmity between Bhagwan Dass and the father of the prosecutrix. Fufa of the prosecutrix, Jeet Ram, was posted at the Yamuna Nagar police station and because of personal animosity, he has been falsely implicated. The trial court vide a detailed judgment dated 30th January, 1996 recorded a finding that all the essential ingredients constituting offence for which the accused were charged were fully proved and subsequently convicted both the accused of the said offences. After hearing them on the quantum of sentence and noticing the antecedents and the family background of the accused, the trial court took a lenient view and sentenced Jai Prakash to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 363 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The Court also convicted him under Section 376 (2)(g) IPC with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, the Court awarded sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment to appellant under Section 368 IPC and a fine of Rs.250/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and/or for the offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC awarded him R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- and to further undergo, in the event of default of payment of fine, four months R.I. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial court, Jai Prakash and the appellant preferred separate appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The same were dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as awarded by the trial court, was upheld by the High Court vide its well reasoned judgment dated 9th August, 2005. Against this judgment of the High Court, the appellant alone has filed the present appeal.
(2.)Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while challenging the judgment of the High Court before this Court, has contended that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, the appellant had been falsely implicated in the case and he had no role to play whatsoever either in the alleged kidnapping of the prosecutrix or in raping her. According to him, even if the entire evidence is read in its correct perspective, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal. It is also contended that the basic ingredients of Section 376 (2)(g) IPC are not satisfied in the present case.
(3.)In order to examine the merit of these contentions, it will be important for us to notice the case of the prosecution in brief.


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