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.