CRA-S/1241/2004 of BALJINDER SINGH @ RAJINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 30 July 2026

1. conviction an Additional S

HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGA Reserv Prono Upload operative part of the judgment is the full judgment is pronounced: oper

1-SB-2004 R SINGH @ RAJINDER SINGH VERSUS PUNJAB 3-SB-2004 DER SINGH @ LAKHA

VERSUS PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPI Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate (Am for the appellant. (through Video Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Pu

***** RJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) The present set of appeals is d nd the order of sentence dated 26 essions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Tr AB & HARYANA

ARH

ved on: 29.05.2026 unced on: 30.07.2026 ded on: 30.07.2026 rative part/full judgment H …..APPELLANT ….RESPONDENT ….APPELLANT ….RESPONDENT

INDERJIT CHAHAL micus Curiae) o Conferencing) unjab. directed against the judgment of 6.04.2004 passed by the learned rack Court, Gurdaspur, whereby T T T T f d y

& CRA-S-1373

the appellan imprisonmen default thereo under section section 506 I 1.2 Rajinder Sin Court, and C who was arra the same judg trial Court. S upon a com disposed of to 1.3 convict Manj learned trial infructuous b brought to th awarded to h and payment Surjit Singh, 319 Cr.P.C. v the said sum 12.02.2004.

nts were convicted and sen nt for ten years along with a f of to further undergo rigorous im n 376(2)(g) IPC, rigorous impris PC. All the sentences were direc CRA-S-1241-SB-2004, preferr gh, who was arrayed as accuse RA-S-1373-SB-2004, preferred ayed as accused No. 3 before the gment of conviction and order o Since both the appeals emanate f mmon set of facts and evidence ogether by this common judgme At the outset, it may be noticed jit Singh @ Laddi, who was arra Court and had filed CRA-S-11 by this Court vide order date he notice of the Court that he had him and had been released on 25 t of fine. The fourth person na , who was summoned as an ad vide order dated 01.10.2003, wa mmoning order was set aside b ntenced to undergo rigorous fine of Rs.3000/- each, and in mprisonment for six months each sonment for one year each under cted to run concurrently. red by Baljinder Singh @ d No. 2 before the learned trial by Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, e learned trial Court, arise out of f sentence passed by the learned from the said judgment and rest e, they are being decided and ent. that the appeal preferred by co- ayed as accused No. 1 before the 134-SB-2004, was dismissed as ed 10.03.2010, it having been d already undergone the sentence 5.04.2009 on grant of remission med in the occurrence, namely dditional accused under Section as subsequently discharged after by this Court vide order dated s n h r @ l , f d t d - e s n e n y n r d

& CRA-S-1373

2. 13.10.2002, Class VIII in to attend a Sa on her bicycl noon to 12.3 village Bara, Rajinder Sin No. 3), who person, whos accused alle adjoining pad her by placin caught hold o Manjit Singh kill her in Lakhwinder her raising a area on his w whereupon th the bicycle. T She was take PA) was reco made his en Station, on th

The prosecution case, shorn of the prosecutrix, then about 13 n Government Senior Secondary atsang at Nirankari Bhawan. Aft le to visit her paternal aunt (Bua 30 p.m., when she reached ne , Manjit Singh @ Laddi (accus gh (accused No. 2) and Lakhw were known to her, reached th se identity was then not known egedly intercepted the prosecut ddy fields. It is alleged that Lakh ng his hand over her mouth, Bal of her arms and the fourth person h @ Laddi committed rape upo case she disclosed the occu Singh @ Lakha also committed an alarm, Gopal Dass, her uncle way to the house of his sister, he accused fled from the place o The prosecutrix is stated to have en to the Police Station by Gopal orded, on the basis of the aforesa ndorsement (Ex. PA/2) and for he basis whereof formal FIR (E f unnecessary details, is that on years of age and a student of y School, Dina Nagar, had gone ter the Satsang was over, she left a), Shindu Rani. At about 12.00 ear the Government School of sed No. 1), Baljinder Singh @ winder Singh @ Lakha (accused here on a scooter, while another , also arrived on a bicycle. The trix and dragged her into the hwinder Singh @ Lakha gagged ljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh n restrained her legs, whereafter on her after extending threats to urrence to anyone. Thereafter, d rape upon the prosecutrix. On e, who was passing through the Shindu Rani, reached the spot, of occurrence on the scooter and become unconscious thereafter. l Dass, where her statement (Ex. aid statement, SI Mukhtiar Singh rwarded the ruqa to the Police Ex. PA/1) came to be registered. n f e t f @ d r e e d h r o , n e , d . . h e .

& CRA-S-1373

2.1 visited the p site plan (Ex legal examin Ratinder Dhi medico-legal underwear o memo (Ex. P vaginal swab Chemical Ex human semen 21.10.2002. PB-06-C-744 taken into po investigation before the co 2.2 exclusively t Session vide accused, the under Section not guilty and

3. examined as

During the course of investiga lace of occurrence, inspected th

x. PE). He also moved an applic nation of the prosecutrix. Pursu illon (PW-8) medically examined l report (Ex. PG). The blood of the prosecutrix were taken PH). The doctor also handed ove bs to HC Banarsi Dass (PW-3) xaminer. As per the report of the n was detected on all the exhibit During the investigation, the s 41, allegedly used in the comm ossession vide recovery memo ( n, the police presented the final r ompetent Court. Upon presentation of the f triable by the Court of Session, order dated 20.03.2003. Findin learned trial Court framed charg ns 376(g), 506 read with Section d claimed trial. In order to bring home the guilt many as thirteen witnesses. PW ation, the Investigating Officer he spot and prepared the rough cation (Ex. PF) for the medico- uant thereto, on 14.10.2002, Dr. d the prosecutrix and proved the d-stained salwar, kameez and into possession vide recovery er a sealed parcel containing the for onward transmission to the e Chemical Examiner (Ex. PB), ts. The accused were arrested on scooter bearing registration No. mission of the offence, was also (Ex. PK). On completion of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. final report, the case, being was committed to the Court of ng a prima facie case against the ges against them on 15.04.2003 n 34 IPC, to which they pleaded t of the accused, the prosecution W-1, the prosecutrix, and PW-2 r h - . e d y e e , n . o e . g f e d n

& CRA-S-1373

Gopal Dass, Banarsi Das transmission Patiala. PW- report to the Singh Dhanj instance of th and registrati medico-legal District Tran allegedly use Radiologist, opined her ag the Investiga examination School, prov date of birth the prosecuti

4. circumstance were put to t Cr.P.C. The implication o examined Jog her uncle, are the ocular witness ss and PW-6 Kuldeep Kum of the sealed parcels to the off -4 Constable Amrik Singh prov e Illaqa Magistrate and the seni jal, Draftsman, proved the sca he prosecutrix. PW-7 ASI Des R ion of the formal FIR. PW-8 D l examination of the prosecutrix. nsport Office, Gurdaspur, prove ed in the commission of the of proved the radiological exami ge to be between 15 and 16 yea ating Officer. PW-12 Dr. N. Va of the accused. PW-13 Pritpal S ed the school record pertaining t as 25.04.1989, and the relevant on closed its evidence. After the prosecution closed i es appearing against the accuse them in their respective stateme accused denied the incriminatin on account of enmity and claim ginder Singh son of Avtar Singh ses to the occurrence. PW-3 HC mar proved the custody and ffice of the Chemical Examiner, ved the delivery of the special ior police officers. PW-5 Janak aled site plan prepared at the Raj proved the receipt of the ruqa Dr. Ratinder Dhillon proved the . PW-9 Harjinder Kumar, Clerk, d the ownership of the scooter ffence. PW-10 Dr. Jagjivan Lal, ination of the prosecutrix and ars. PW-11 SI Mukhtiar Singh is ashisth proved the medico-legal Singh, Headmaster, Government to the prosecutrix, including her certificate (Ex. PR). Thereafter, its evidence, the incriminating ed in the prosecution evidence ents recorded under Section 313 ng circumstances, pleaded false med innocence. In defence, they h as DW-1, who deposed that no C d , l k e a e , r , d s l t r , g e e y o

& CRA-S-1373

such occurre Ashwani Tu (Ex. D-1), an was closed. 4.1 adduced by t the three accu and 506 rea sentenced the order of sen preferred by Lakhwinder S

5. conviction an the evidence evidence. 5.1 the material the prosecuti the statemen Mukhtiar Sin with regard t identification ence had taken place in his uli, Draftsman, as DW-2, who nd Sukhdev Singh as DW-3. T Upon appreciation of the oral as the prosecution and the defence used guilty of the offences puni ad with Section 34 IPC and em accordingly vide the impugn ntence. Aggrieved thereby, th y Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh @ Lakha (accused No. 3). Learned Amicus Curiae assail nd order of sentence on the grou on record and suffer from a c It is contended that the learne contradictions, inconsistencies ion case, resulting in an erroneo nts of PW-1, the prosecutrix, PW ngh, Investigating Officer, suff o the time of occurrence, the pre n of the accused. It is fur fields. They further examined o proved the scaled site plan Thereafter, the defence evidence s well as documentary evidence , the learned trial Court held all shable under Sections 376(2)(g) , consequently, convicted and ned judgment of conviction and he present appeals have been r Singh (accused No. 2) and . ed the impugned judgment of und that the same are contrary to complete misappreciation of the ed trial Court failed to appreciate and inherent improbabilities in ous conviction. It is argued that W-2 Gopal Dass and PW-11 SI fer from material discrepancies eparation of the site plan and the rther submitted that no test d n e e l ) d d n d f o e e n t I s e t

& CRA-S-1373

identification prosecutrix fo 5.2 forensic evid Referring to Vashisth, it is of the prosec although the mud stains w 5.3 the exhibits, semen sampl Consequently with the alleg states that the by itself, is in 5.4 the prosecutr According to her age to be variation, in age. It is sub parents were accordance w n parade was conducted and the a for the first time during trial. Learned Amicus Curiae further dence does not lend assuranc the testimonies of PW-8 Dr. Rat s argued that no external injury cutrix or on that of any of the acc occurrence is alleged to have tak were found on the clothes of the p It is also contended that though no grouping or comparison test les of either of the appellants y, the scientific evidence fails to ged offence. It is further argued e possibility of sexual intercours nsufficient to establish the charge It is next contended that the pro rix was below sixteen years of o the learned Amicus Curiae, th e between 15 and 16 years, subje which event she could well ha bmitted that neither her birth ce e examined and, therefore, her with law. It is further argued that appellants were identified by the contended that the medical and ce to the prosecution version. tinder Dhillon and PW-12 Dr. N. was found either on the person cused. It is further submitted that ken place in the paddy fields, no prosecutrix. h human semen was detected on was conducted and no blood or were obtained for comparison. o connect either of the appellants that the medical opinion merely se could not be ruled out, which, e of rape. secution has failed to prove that age on the date of occurrence. he radiological opinion assessed ect to the permissible margin of ave been above sixteen years of ertificate was produced nor her r age has not been proved in the testimony of the prosecutrix e d . . n t o n r . s y , t . d f f r n x

& CRA-S-1373

does not ins was no Nira distance of a PW-2 Gopal witness and prosecutrix. I taken place a there was an accused do n for medico-l 5.5 2), learned implicated an submitted th attributed on @ Lakha, wh hold of the doubtful by t PW-2 Gopal caught hold told him tha submitted th belies the alle pire confidence. According to ankari Bhawan at Dina Nagar a about two to two and a half mile Dass, being the real uncle of t that his testimony is materiall It is also contended that despite at a distance of about four kilo unexplained delay in lodging th not find mention in the rough sit legal examination (Ex. PF) or Qua appellant Baljinder Singh @ Amicus Curiae further conten nd that no allegation of rape h hat, according to the prosecutio ly to co-accused Manjit Singh @ hile the only allegation against prosecutrix. It is argued that e the material inconsistency betwe l Dass, inasmuch as the prosec of her arms, whereas PW-2 Go at the appellant had caught h at the absence of any injury on egation that she was forcibly rest the Investigating Officer, there and the same was situated at a es therefrom. It is submitted that the prosecutrix, is an interested ly inconsistent with that of the the occurrence having allegedly metres from the Police Station, he FIR. Further, the names of the te plan (Ex. PE), the application the recovery memo (Ex. PH). @ Rajinder Singh (accused No. nded that he has been falsely has been attributed to him. It is on itself, the acts of rape are @ Laddi and Lakhwinder Singh this appellant is that he caught even this allegation is rendered een the statements of PW-1 and cutrix stated that this appellant opal Dass deposed that she had hold of her head. It is further n the person of the prosecutrix trained by this appellant. e a t d e y , e n . . y s e h t d d t d r x

& CRA-S-1373

5.6 busy road in during the summoning S the prosecutr stands substa Section 506 extending any 5.7 Curiae praye sentence be extending to

6. judgment of founded upo evidence ava 6.1 cogent, natur argued, finds Dass, who r prosecutrix, a record. Refe medico-legal

It is also argued that the alleg n broad daylight, yet no indep investigation. Lastly, it is co Surjit Singh, who was alleged to rix, was set aside by this Court antially weakened. It is further s IPC is made out against this y threat has been attributed to hi On the strength of the aforesai ed that the impugned judgmen set aside and the appellants b them the benefit of doubt. Per contra, learned State cou conviction and order of sentence on a proper appreciation of the ailable on record and calls for no It was contended that the testimo ral and inspires confidence. T s substantial corroboration from reached the place of occurrenc as well as from the medical and erring to the testimony of PW l report and the report of the Ch ged occurrence took place on a pendent witness was associated ontended that once the order o have caught hold of the legs of t, the prosecution version itself submitted that no offence under appellant, as no allegation of im. id submissions, learned Amicus nt of conviction and order of be acquitted of the charges by unsel supported the impugned e and submitted that the same is e oral as well as documentary interference by this Court. ony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is he prosecution version, it was m the testimony of PW-2 Gopal ce on hearing the cries of the d scientific evidence adduced on W-8 Dr. Ratinder Dhillon, the hemical Examiner, learned State a d r f f r f s f y d s y s s l e n e e

& CRA-S-1373

counsel subm due assuranc 6.2 was a minor upon the test showing the corroborated 6.3 the prosecutr Report, there parade. 6.4 Information evidence, par 6.5 pointed out b the prosecuti contended th previous enm appellants. 6.6 counsel praye mitted that the presence of hum e to the prosecution case. Learned State counsel further on the date of the occurrence. In timony of PW-13 Pritpal Singh date of birth of the prosecutrix by the radiological opinion of P It was further submitted that sin rix and had been specifically n e was no occasion or necessity It was next submitted that th Report stands satisfactorily rticularly the testimony of PW-2 Learned State counsel further by the defence are minor in natu ion case or impair the credibili hat no material has been broug mity so as to furnish a motive On the strength of the afores ed for dismissal of both the appe man semen on the exhibits lends contended that the prosecutrix n this regard, reliance was placed , who proved the school record x as 25.04.1989, which is duly PW-10 Dr. Jagjivan Lal. nce the appellants were known to named in the First Information for holding a test identification he delay in lodging the First explained by the prosecution Gopal Dass. argued that the discrepancies ure and do not go to the root of ity of its witnesses. It was also ght on record to establish any for the false implication of the said submissions, learned State eals. s x d d y o n n t n s f o y e e

& CRA-S-1373

7. appellants an carefully gon Before adver controversy, provisions, n Code, 1860, a the Indian E controversy i "375 A m exce falli Firs Seco xxxx Sixth year Expl inter "376

(2) W xxxx

(g) c shal shal also

I have heard learned Amicu nd learned State counsel at ne through the record of the c rting to the rival submissions an it would be apposite to rep namely Sections 375, 376(2)(g), as applicable on the date of the o Evidence Act, 1872, which h involved in the present appeals.

5. Rape: an is said to commit "rape" who epted, has sexual intercourse wit ing under any of the six following st. - Against her will. ondly. - Without her consent. xx hly. - With or without her cons rs of age. lanation. - Penetration is suff rcourse necessary to the offence

6. Punishment for rape: Whoever, - xxx commits gang rape, ll be punished with rigorous im ll not be less than ten years but o be liable to fine: us Curiae appearing for the considerable length and have case with their able assistance. nd examining the merits of the produce the relevant statutory 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal occurrence and Section 114-A of have a direct bearing on the o, except in the case hereinafter th a woman under circumstances g descriptions:- sent, when she is under sixteen ficient to constitute the sexual of rape." mprisonment for a term which which may be for life and shall e e . e y l f e r s n l h l

& CRA-S-1373

Prov men eithe Exp grou each with "506 Who puni may If th to impr seve "34. inten Whe the c act i "114 pros In a

(c) o secti inter was and not c

8. 376(2)(g) IPC

vided that the court may, for ade ntioned in the judgment, impose er description for a term of less t planation 1. - Where a woman up of persons acting in furthera h of the persons shall be deeme hin the meaning of this sub-sectio

6. Punishment for criminal intim oever commits the offence of ished with imprisonment of eith y extend to two years, or with fine hreat be to cause death or grievo cause death or grievous hu risonment of either description f en years, or with fine, or with bot Acts done by several person ntion: en a criminal act is done by se common intention of all, each of in the same manner as if it were 4-A Presumption as to abs secutions for rape: a Prosecution for rape under cla or clause (d) or clause (e) or c ion 376 of the Indian Penal Co rcourse by the accused is proved without the consent of the wom such woman states in her eviden consent, the court shall presume The principal charge against t C. Explanation 1 appended to th equate and special reasons to be e a sentence of imprisonment of than ten years. is raped by one or more in a ance of their common intention, ed to have committed gang rape on." midation: criminal intimidation shall be her description for a term which e, or with both; ous hurt, etc. and if the threat be urt... shall be punished with for a term which may extend to th." ns in furtherance of common everal persons in furtherance of of such persons is liable for that done by him alone." sence of consent in certain ause (a) or clause (b) or clause clause (g) of sub-section (2) of ode (45 of 1860), where sexual d and the question is whether it man alleged to have been raped nce before the court that she did e that she did not consent." the appellants is under Section he said provision makes it clear e f a e e h e h o n f t n e f l t d d n r

& CRA-S-1373

that where a acting in furt shall be deem whether he h sustain a con to establish n acting conjo essential ing criminal liab provision.

9. Section 375 I below sixteen consent, con immaterial. T that penetrati the offence o statutory pres rape under Se proved and t However, if below sixtee consent woul woman is raped by one or mo therance of their common intent med to have committed the offen himself committed the act of sexu nviction under Section 376(2)(g) not only the commission of rape ointly in furtherance of their c gredients stand established, e ility by virtue of the statutory d It is equally well settled, and is IPC, as it stood at the relevant tim n years of age, sexual intercours nstitutes rape and the question The Explanation appended to Se ion is sufficient to constitute the of rape. Section 114-A of the In sumption as to the absence of co ection 376(2)(g) IPC where sexu the prosecutrix states in her evi the prosecution succeeds in pr en years of age on the date of t ld not arise for consideration at a ore persons constituting a group tion, each member of the group nce of gang rape irrespective of ual intercourse. Thus, in order to IPC, the prosecution is required e but also that the accused were common intention. Once these every participant incurs equal deeming fiction contained in the s evident from clause Sixthly of me, that where the prosecutrix is se with her, with or without her n of consent becomes wholly ection 375 IPC further provides e sexual intercourse necessary to ndian Evidence Act also raises a onsent in a prosecution for gang ual intercourse by the accused is idence that she did not consent. roving that the prosecutrix was the occurrence, the question of all. p p f o d e e l e f s r y s o a g s . s f

& CRA-S-1373

10. rival submiss that arise for

(i) whethe the occurrenc

(ii) whethe was committ

(iii) whethe commission

(iv) whethe delay in lodg the prosecut grouping/com sufficient to questions sha

11. prosecutrix w establish he Headmaster, including the the prosecut 13.10.2002, s occurrence.

In the backdrop of the aforesa sions advanced by learned couns determination are: er the prosecutrix was below six ce; er the prosecution has proved be ed upon the prosecutrix; er the identity and participation of the offence stand established er the deficiencies pointed out ging the First Information Repo tion evidence, the absence of mparison tests and the alleged create a reasonable doubt regard all now be considered seriatim. The first question that falls fo was below sixteen years of age o er age, the prosecution exam Government School, who prov e certificate (Ex. PR). As per the trix is 25.04.1989. Since th she was about 13 years and six m aid statutory provisions and the sel for the parties, the questions xteen years of age on the date of eyond reasonable doubt that rape of the present appellants in the d beyond reasonable doubt; and t by the defence, including the ort, the alleged discrepancies in f injuries, the non-conduct of lapses in the investigation, are ding the prosecution case. These or consideration is whether the on the date of the occurrence. To mined PW-13 Pritpal Singh, ved the relevant school record, e said record, the date of birth of he occurrence took place on months of age on the date of the e s f e e d e n f e e e o , , f n e

& CRA-S-1373

11.1 has failed to neither her b prove her dat It is by now w in the ordina evidence and considerable decision of H (2013) 7 SCC “20. need and the unde Chil unde

Learned Amicus Curiae veheme o prove the age of the prosecut birth certificate was produced no te of birth. The submission, how well settled that an entry relating ary course in the school admissio d, once duly proved by the cu evidentiary value. Reliance in Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jarn C 263, wherein it was held as und . On the issue of determinatio ds to make a reference to Rule 1 Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 Rules). The aforestated er section 68(1) of the Juvenile ldren) Act, 2000. Rule 12 refe er : "12. Procedure to be followed every case concerning a child law, the court or the Board Committee referred to in rule 1 the age of such juvenile or chi law within a period of thirty d the application for that purpose ently argued that the prosecution trix in accordance with law, as or were her parents examined to wever, does not merit acceptance. g to the date of birth maintained on register is a relevant piece of ustodian of the record, carries this regard is placed upon the nail Singh v. State of Haryana, der: n of age of a minor, one only 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care 2007 (hereinafter referred to as 2007 Rules have been framed Justice (Care and Protection of ferred to hereinabove reads as in determination of Age - (1) In d or a juvenile in conflict with d or as the case may be the 19 of these rules shall determine ild or a juvenile in conflict with days from the date of making of e. n s o . d f s e , y e s d f s n h e e h f

&

(2) The court or the Board Committee shall decide the j juvenile or the child or as th conflict with law, prima fac appearance or documents, if observation home or in jail.

(3) In every case concerning a law, the age determination inq court or the Board or, as the c seeking evidence by obtaining -

(a) (i) the matriculation or equ and in the absence whereof;

(ii) the date of birth certificate play school) first attended; and

(iii) the birth certificate given b authority or a panchayat;

(b) and only in the absence of

(a) above, the medical opinio constituted Medical Board, wh juvenile or child. In case exact done, the Court or the Board Committee, for the reasons to considered necessary, give ben d or as the case may be the juvenility or otherwise of the he case may be the juvenile in cie on the basis of physical available, and send him to the child or juvenile in conflict with quiry shall be conducted by the case may be, the Committee by - uivalent certificates, if available; e from the school (other than a d in the absence whereof; by a corporation or a municipal f either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause on will be sought from a duly hich will declare the age of the assessment of the age cannot be d or, as the case may be, the o be recorded by them, may, if nefit to the child or juvenile by e e n l e h e y ; a l e y e e e f y

&

considering his/her age on low year. and, while passing orders in su consideration such evidence medical opinion, as the case respect of his age and either of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or

(b) shall be the conclusive pr child or the juvenile in conflict

(4) If the age of a juvenile or with law is found to be below on the basis of any of the concl (3), the court or the Board Committee shall in writing pas declaring the status of juvenili of the Act and these rules an given to such juvenile or the pe

(5) Save and except where, f required, inter alia, in terms of Act and these rules, no further the court or the Board after certificate or any other docum rule (3) of this rule. wer side within the margin of one uch case shall, after taking into as may be available, or the e may be, record a finding in f the evidence specified in any of in the absence whereof, clause roof of the age as regards such with law. child or the juvenile in conflict 18 years on the date of offence, lusive proof specified in sub-rule d or as the case may be the ss an order stating the age and ity or otherwise, for the purpose d a copy of the order shall be erson concerned. further inquiry or otherwise is of section 7A, section 64 of the r inquiry shall be conducted by r examining and obtaining the mentary proof referred to in sub- e o e n f e h t

e e d e e s e y e -

& CRA-S-1373

Even of a statu for a any betw crim appr age conc extra asce of o unde has clau dete matr

(6) The provisions contained those disposed off cases, where been determined in accordanc in sub-rule(3) and the Act, sentence under the Act for pa interest of the juvenile in confli n though Rule 12 is strictly appl child in conflict with law, we a utory provision should be the b a child who is a victim of crime. difference in so far as the is ween a child in conflict with law me. Therefore, in our considered ropriate to apply Rule 12 of th of the prosecutrix VW-PW6. T clusively, has been expressed acted above. Under the aforesai ertained, by adopting the first a options postulated in Rule 12(3 er Rule 12(3), an option is expr overriding effect over an opt use. The highest rated option ermine the age of a minor. I riculation (or equivalent) certif in this rule shall also apply to e the status of juvenility has not ce with the provisions contained requiring dispensation of the assing appropriate order in the ict with law." licable only to determine the age re of the view that the aforesaid basis for determining age, even For, in our view, there is hardly ssue of minority is concerned, w, and a child who is a victim of d opinion, it would be just and he 2007 Rules, to determine the The manner of determining age in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 id provision, the age of a child is available basis, out of a number 3). If, in the scheme of options ressed in a preceding clause, it ion expressed in a subsequent available, would conclusively In the scheme of Rule 12(3), ficate of the concerned child, is o t d e e e d n y

f d e e s r s t t y

s

& CRA-S-1373

the h othe certi ente entry is lia is to post a m certi take conc age that child 11.2 and duly pro 25.04.1989. N material bee manipulated prosecution c the parents o highest rated option. In case, the er evidence can be relied upon. ificate, Rule 12(3), envisages co ered, in the school first attended ry of date of birth is available, th able to be treated as final and co o be relied upon. Only in the ab tulates reliance on a birth certifi municipal authority or a pan ificate is available, then no oth en into consideration, for dete cerned, as the said certificate w of the child. It is only in the a Rule 12(3) postulates the determ d, on the basis of medical opinio In the present case, PW-13 prod oved the entry recording the dat Nothing has been elicited in his en brought on record, to sug or fabricated or was made with case. Merely because the birth f the prosecutrix were not exami e said certificate is available, no Only in the absence of the said onsideration of the date of birth d by the child. In case such an he date of birth depicted therein onclusive, and no other material bsence of such entry, Rule 12(3) ficate issued by a corporation or chayat. Yet again, if such a er material whatsoever is to be ermining the age of the child would conclusively determine the absence of any of the aforesaid, mination of age of the concerned on.” …..emphasis supplied duced the original school record te of birth of the prosecutrix as cross-examination, nor has any ggest that the said entry was a view to lending support to the certificate was not produced or ined would not, by itself, render o d h n n l ) r a e d e

d d d s y s e r r

& CRA-S-1373

the duly prov down by the 11.3 variation in r sixteen years examination override relia duly proved t doubt upon justification medical opin Dr. Jagjivan between 15 a conclusion. radiological approximatel not detract fr the contrary, in the school

11.4. prosecution h years and six sixteen years IPC, as it sto ved school record unreliable, par Hon’ble Supreme Court. The contention that, after allow radiological assessment, the pro s of age is devoid of merit. It is furnishes only an approximat able documentary evidence. In t the school record, and there is n its authenticity or correctnes for discarding the age recorde nion indicates an estimated age r Lal, Radiologist, who assesse and 16 years on radiological exa Although, in his cross-examin assessment is only an estimate ly one and a half years on eith rom the evidentiary value of the the radiological opinion broadl register and lends further assura This Court, therefore, has no has successfully established tha x months old on the date of the o s of age. Consequently, in view o ood at the relevant time, the que rticularly in view of the law laid wing the permissible margin of osecutrix could have been above s well settled that a radiological te estimate of age and cannot the present case, the prosecution no material on record to cast any ss. Consequently, there is no ed therein merely because the range. The testimony of PW-10, ed the prosecutrix's age to be amination, further reinforces this nation, he acknowledged that e and may carry a variation of her side, such qualification does e duly proved school record. On y corroborates the age recorded ance to the prosecution case. hesitation in holding that the at the prosecutrix was about 13 occurrence and was, thus, below of clause Sixthly of Section 375 estion of her consent is rendered d f e l t n y o e , e s t f s n d e w d

& CRA-S-1373

wholly imm prosecutrix h

12. prosecution h rape. On this prosecutrix, t

12.1. account of th the adjoining rape upon he Lakha. Her t inspires conf

12.2. corroboration Ratinder Dhi proved the m introitus and kameez and vaginal swab the report of on the vagina Ratinder Dh could not be aterial. Even otherwise, it is had voluntarily consented to the a The next question that falls fo has succeeded in proving that th s aspect, the prosecution has re the medical evidence and the re The prosecutrix (PW-1) has give he occurrence. She deposed that g paddy fields, co-accused Man r and was thereafter followed by testimony on this material aspe fidence. The ocular version of the n from the medical as well as th illon, who medically examined medico-legal report (Ex. PG). Th d on the inner aspect of both th underwear of the prosecutrix w bs were obtained and sealed for f the Chemical Examiner (Ex. P al swabs as well as on the cloth illon further opined that the p ruled out. not the defence case that the alleged acts. or consideration is whether the he prosecutrix was subjected to elied upon the testimony of the eport of the Chemical Examiner. en a clear, cogent and consistent t after she was forcibly taken to njit Singh @ Laddi committed y appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ ect has remained consistent and prosecutrix finds substantial he scientific evidence. PW-8 Dr. the prosecutrix on 14.10.2002, he doctor noticed blood over the highs. The blood-stained salwar, were taken into possession and r chemical examination. As per PB), human semen was detected hes of the prosecutrix. PW-8 Dr. ossibility of sexual intercourse e e o e . t o d @ d l . , e , d r d . e

& CRA-S-1373

12.3 offence of ra nor any lac acceptance. E makes it abu sexual interco the hymen or requirement the decision Nath, (1994) not necessar emission of reproduced b “8. Cod follo Expl inter From ingr acco the the nece

The contention raised on beh ape is not established as there w ceration on the person of th Explanation to Section 375 IPC, undantly clear that penetration ourse necessary to the offence o r the presence of injuries on the for proving the offence. Relianc of the Hon’ble Supreme Cou ) 6 SCC 29; wherein it was held ry that there should be comp semen and rupture of hyme below: It may here be noticed that S de defines rape and the explan ows :- lanation :- Penetration is suffi rcourse necessary to the offence m the explanation reproduced a redients which are essential for p omplishment of the act with forc offence of rape neither Section explanation attached thereto essarily be. complete penetratio half of the appellants that the was neither rupture of the hymen he prosecutrix does not merit , as it stood at the relevant time, n is sufficient to constitute the of rape. Consequently, rupture of genitalia is not an indispensable ce in this regard is placed upon urt in State of U.P. v. Babul thatto constitute offence of rape plete penetration of penis and en. The relevant paragraph is Section 375 of the Indian Penal nation to Section 375 reads as ficient to constitute the sexual of rape." above it is distinctly clear that proving a charge of rape are the rce and resistance. To constitute n 375 of Indian Penal Code nor o require that there should on of the penis into the private e n t , e f e n l e d s l s l t e e r d e

& CRA-S-1373

part offen comp rupt orga with into purp so i with stain more activ with foun 12.4 Dhillon was whether the h of any such on that score 12.5 opinion expre of sexual in therefore, in t of the victim/prosecutrix. In nce of rape it is not at all n mplete penetration of the male org ture of hymen. Even partial or s an within the labia majore or hout any emission of semen or e the private part of the victim pose of Sections 375 and 376 of t is quite possible to commit le hout causing any injury to the g ns. But in the present case befo re than enough evidence positivel vity on (he victim And she w hout which she would not have nd on her private part by the doc Adverting to the facts of the p not specifically questioned in hymen of the prosecutrix was in evidence, no inference favourab , particularly in view of the settle Equally devoid of merit is th essed by PW-8 Dr. Ratinder Dhi ntercourse could not be ruled ncapable of supporting the pro other words to constitute the necessary that there should be rgan with emission of semen and slightest penetration of the make the vulva or pudenda with or even an, attempt at penetration would be quite enough for the f Indian Penal Code That being egally the offence of rape even genitals or leaving any seminal ore us as noticed above there is ly showing that there was sexual as subjected to sexual assault sustained injuries of the nature ctor who examined her.” present case, PW-8 Dr. Ratinder n her cross-examination as to ntact or ruptured. In the absence ble to the defence can be drawn ed law. he contention that the medical illon, namely that the possibility out, is merely tentative and, osecution case. It is trite that e e d e r n e g n l s l t e r o e n l y , t

& CRA-S-1373

medical evid nature and t Where the trustworthy, t present case, inner aspect the vaginal corroborate t by the doct circumstance value of the m 12.6 clothes of th place in the minor circum cogent and c the prosecuti 12.7 successfully

13. the appellant the evidence appellants. T PA), on the b dence in a prosecution for rape the substantive evidence is the testimony of the prosecutrix the medical evidence only lends , the medical findings of blood of both thighs, coupled with th swabs and the clothes of he version of the prosecutrix. Th tor while rendering the opini es of the present case, be cons medical and scientific evidence. The further submission that no he prosecutrix, though the occu paddy fields, is of little conseq mstance which is wholly insuffic convincing ocular, medical and on. This Court is, therefore, satis established that the prosecutrix w The next question pertains to t ts in the commission of the offen on record, this Court finds no re he prosecutrix named all the thre basis whereof the formal First e is essentially corroborative in e testimony of the prosecutrix. is found to be reliable and s assurance to her version. In the d over the introitus and on the e detection of human semen on the prosecutrix, substantially he guarded expression employed ion cannot, in the facts and strued to dilute the evidentiary o mud stains were found on the rrence is alleged to have taken quence. At best, it constitutes a cient to outweigh the otherwise scientific evidence adduced by sfied that the prosecution has was subjected to rape. the identity and participation of nce. Upon a careful appraisal of eason to doubt the identity of the ee accused in her statement (Ex. Information Report came to be n . d e e n y d d y e n a e y s f f e . e

& CRA-S-1373

registered. S attributed to stated that th version, in t Gopal Dass. 13.1 a stray answ contend that contention d prosecutrix a maintained th specifically d of the accuse “I did not kn any benefit prosecutrix, suggestions t naked eyes t answer, app examination be torn out of as to discred principle of required to

She consistently reiterated thei each of them while deposing bef he accused were known to her ev this regard, finds corroboration Much emphasis has been laid b wer elicited during the cross-exa she did not know the accused p does not merit acceptance. A re as a whole leaves no manner hat the accused were known to denied the suggestion put to her t ed. A stray line in the cross-exam now the accused persons before to the accused. Even as per it reveals that the learned to the prosecutrix and before th that the words “it is incorrect to arently elicited during the c of a child witness aged about th f context and elevated to the stat dit her otherwise cogent and con appreciation of evidence that be read as a whole and ir names as well as the role fore the Court. She categorically ven prior to the occurrence. Her n from the testimony of PW-2 y the learned Amicus Curiae on amination of the prosecutrix to prior to the occurrence. The said eading of the testimony of the of doubt that she consistently o her from before. She, in fact, that she did not know the names mination of the prosecutrix that e the occurrence” cannot extend the cross-examination of the defence counsel was putting his stray line one can see with o” has been crossed. A solitary ourse of an extensive cross- hirteen and a half years, cannot tus of a material contradiction so nsistent testimony. It is a settled the testimony of a witness is d not in isolated fragments. e y r n o d e y , s t d e g h y - t o d s .

& CRA-S-1373

13.2 known to th opportunity question of h object of a te witness in id known to the This principl Court in Ma Judgments 3 unnecessary aforesaid prin occurrence to opportunity t from before. in any manne

14. Baljinder Sin attributed to is legally un does not with 14.1 relevant time is raped by o

Once it stands established tha he prosecutrix and had been in her statement leading to th holding a test identification parad est identification parade is to tes dentifying an unknown person. e witness, the holding of such a p le stands authoritatively recogn alkhanSingh v. State of Madhya 331, wherein it has been held th where the accused are previou nciple applies with full force to t ook place in broad daylight and to observe the accused, who w The absence of a test identifica er, dent the prosecution case. The principal contention adva ngh @ Rajinder Singh is that him and, therefore, his convicti nsustainable. The submission, t hstand judicial scrutiny. Explanation 1 to Section 376 e, incorporates a legal fiction by ne or more persons constituting at the accused were previously named by her at the earliest he registration of the FIR, the de pales into insignificance. The st the memory and veracity of a Where the accused are already parade serves no useful purpose. nised by the Hon’ble Supreme a Pradesh 2003(2) Apex Court hat a test identification parade is usly known to the witness. The the facts of the present case. The d the prosecutrix had sufficient were, in any case, known to her ation parade, therefore, does not, anced on behalf of appellant no allegation of rape has been on under Section 376(2)(g) IPC though attractive at first blush,

(2) (g) IPC, as it stood at the y providing that where a woman a group acting in furtherance of y t e e a y . e t s e e t r , t n C , e n f

& CRA-S-1373

their common committed th committed th the individua the group in t common inte 14.2 both in her s Report came appellant Ba co-accused M committed ra was neither prosecutrix, h from offering he acted in accused and i in Explanatio 14.3 by contendin Rajinder Sing the prosecutr In the consid affect the sub n intention, each member of the he offence of gang rape irresp he act of sexual intercourse. The al act of penetration but on the p the commission of the offence w ention. In the present case, the prosec statement (Ex. PA), on the basis e to be registered, and in her de ljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh Manjit Singh @ Laddi and appell ape upon her. The act attributed passive nor incidental. On th he facilitated the commission o g resistance. His participation, th furtherance of the common in is consequently liable by virtue o on 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Learned Amicus Curiae has sou ng that while the prosecutrix gh had caught hold of her arms, rix had told him that the appella dered opinion of this Court, the s bstratum of the prosecution case e group shall be deemed to have pective of whether he himself e emphasis, therefore, is not on participation of each member of while acting in furtherance of the cutrix has consistently deposed, s whereof the First Information eposition before the Court, that h caught hold of her arms while lant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha to the appellant-Baljinder Singh he contrary, by restraining the f the offence and prevented her herefore, clearly establishes that ntention shared with the other of the deeming fiction contained ught to point out a discrepancy stated that Baljinder Singh @ PW-2 Gopal Dass deposed that ant had caught hold of her head. said discrepancy is too trivial to

e. The prosecutrix has remained e f n f e , n t e a h e r t r d y @ t . o d

& CRA-S-1373

consistent in Court regard in the testim had disclose enure to the prosecutrix b the prosecuti her while the discrepancies passage of ti cannot be m evidence.

15. absence of e persons of th rejected. It i itself, determ not expected prove her ca Hon’ble Sup

574. The rele “1 out inte her statement (Ex. PA) as well ding the role attributed to the app mony of PW-2 Gopal Dass while d to him immediately after th benefit of the appellant. Wheth by holding her arms or her head ion case, namely, that he active e offence was being committed s are but natural in the narration ime and, unless they strike at th made a ground to discard othe The contention raised on beh external injuries on the person he accused probabilises the defe is well settled that the absence minative of the question whethe d that every rape victim should ase. Reliance in this regard is p preme Court in Krishan v. Stat evant paragraph is reproduced be

6. ……………… The further co t rape by the accused, that the p ercourse and there were no s l as in her deposition before the pellant. If there is any variation e narrating what the prosecutrix e occurrence, the same cannot her the appellant restrained the d does not alter the substance of ely overpowered and restrained by the co-accused. Such minor of a traumatic incident after the he root of the prosecution case, erwise reliable and trustworthy half of the appellants that the n of the prosecutrix or on the ence version also deserves to be e of external injuries is not, by er rape was committed and it is d have injuries on her body to placed upon the decision of the te of Haryana, 2014 (13) SCC elow: ontention of the counsel to rule prosecutrix is habitual of sexual signs of recent forcible sexual e n x t e f d r e , y e e e y s o e C e l l

& CRA-S-1373

inte exp to est

and circumst accepting or 15.1 years of age. the accused, thereby rende circumstance unnatural nor 15.2 blood over t report of the the vaginal s scientific find prosecutrix. 15.3 person of the facts and circ case nor does rape.

ercourse or injuries on her bo pected that every rape victim sh prove her case. The findings tablished that there was a rape c Thus, the presence or absence of tances of each case and canno rejecting the prosecution case. In the present case, the prosecu . According to her consistent ve one of whom gagged her mouth ering her incapable of offering a es, the absence of external inj r sufficient to cast a doubt on the On the contrary, the medical ev he introitus and on the inner a Chemical Examiner confirms th swabs and on the clothes of the dings lend substantial corrobora Viewed thus, the mere absenc e prosecutrix or on the persons cumstances of the present case, s it justify an inference that the p ody, also cannot help. It is not hould have injuries on her body of the medical experts clearly ommitted against the victim.” f injuries depends upon the facts ot constitute the sole basis for utrix was a child of about 13½ ersion, she was overpowered by h while the others restrained her, any effective resistance. In such uries on her person is neither e prosecution case. vidence reveals the presence of aspect of both thighs, while the he presence of human semen on prosecutrix. These medical and ation to the ocular version of the ce of external injuries on the of the accused does not, in the militate against the prosecution prosecutrix was not subjected to t y y s r ½ y , h r f e n d e e e n o

& CRA-S-1373

16. registration o delay, in the explained. PW they proceed intercepted b prevented th reached the p came to be Report was appears to b examination. 16.1 in lodging t prosecution c circumstance sufficient op no adverse Information R no material h was utilised appellants. O both plausibl the registrati detract from

The contention regarding the d of the First Information Report facts and circumstances of the p W-2 Gopal Dass has deposed tha ded towards the police station. H by the parents of appellant Lak hem from proceeding further. It police station, where the statem recorded, on the basis whereo registered. The explanation fu be natural, probable and has re

It is a settled principle of crimin the First Information Report case. The significance of the de es of each case. Unless it is sho portunity for deliberation, emb inference can be drawn mer Report not having been registere has been brought on record to sug for concocting a false versi On the contrary, the explanation le and convincing. Consequently ion of the First Information Re the credibility of the prosecution delay of about six hours in the is equally devoid of merit. The present case, stands satisfactorily at after rescuing the prosecutrix, However, on the way, they were khwinder Singh @ Lakha, who t was only thereafter that they ment (Ex. PA) of the prosecutrix of the formal First Information urnished by PW-2 Gopal Dass emained unshaken in his cross- nal jurisprudence that mere delay is not, by itself, fatal to the elay depends upon the facts and own that the delay has afforded ellishment or false implication, rely on account of the First ed promptly. In the present case, ggest that the intervening period ion or falsely implicating the n offered by the prosecution is y, the delay of about six hours in eport does not, in any manner, n case. The discrepancies sought e e y , e o y x n s - y e d d , t , d e s n , t

& CRA-S-1373

to be highlig It has been co PW-2 Gopal on reaching weeping con stated that th whereas the Nagar. 16.2 discrepancies The prosecu subjected to cannot be exp mature perso photographic her uncle rea has categoric The discrepa doubt upon th 16.3 knowledge o Bhawan. The at Nirankari ghted by the learned Amicus Cur ontended that while the prosecut Dass, reached the spot during th the place of occurrence, he fo ndition. Likewise, it has been p he Satsang was being held at N said Bhawan is, in fact, situate In the considered opinion o s are too trivial to affect the sub utrix was a child of about 13½ a traumatic sexual assault. A pected to possess the powers of on or to narrate every minute c precision. Her impression rega ached the spot is wholly unders cally deposed that she lost cons ancy, therefore, neither undermin he prosecution version. Similarly, the prosecutrix canno of the geographical or munici e mere fact that she referred to t Bhawan, Dina Nagar, though riae are also of no consequence. trix (PW-1) stated that her uncle, he occurrence, who deposed that ound the prosecutrix alone in a pointed out that the prosecutrix Nirankari Bhawan, Dina Nagar, ed at some distance from Dina of this Court, the aforesaid bstratum of the prosecution case. ½ years of age who had been A victim in such circumstances f observation or recollection of a detail of the occurrence with arding the exact stage at which standable, particularly when she sciousness after the occurrence. nes her credibility nor casts any ot be expected to possess precise ipal location of the Nirankari the Satsang as having been held h the Bhawan may actually be . , t a x , a d . n s a h h e . y e i d e

& CRA-S-1373

situated at so bearing what 16.4 insignificant case, are but prosecution meticulously of the eviden the testimony

17. merely becau Relationship credit. A rela testimony of trustworthy, testimony of conformity w Merely becau otherwise rel

18. detection of prosecutrix c conducted to Reliance has ome distance therefrom, is who tsoever on the core prosecution c It is well settled that minor discr inconsistencies, which do not g t natural and rather lend assur version, as they rule out th y fabricated account. The Court i nce and not with trivial variatio y of truthful witnesses. The contention that PW-2 Gopa use he is the real uncle of the p with the victim does not, by itse ated witness cannot be equated w f such a witness is otherwise fo there is no legal impediment to f PW-2 Gopal Dass inspires co with the version of the prosecu use he is related to the prosecu liable testimony. The submission advanced on b human semen on the vaginal cannot be relied upon, as no gr o connect the semen with the ac been placed on the decision in M olly inconsequential and has no case. repancies, normal variations and go to the root of the prosecution rance to the truthfulness of the he possibility of a tutored or is concerned with the substance ns which are bound to occur in al Dass is an interested witness prosecutrix is equally untenable. elf, render a witness unworthy of with an interested witness. If the found to be natural, cogent and o placing reliance thereon. The onfidence and is in substantial utrix on all material particulars. utrix is no ground to discard his behalf of the appellants that the swabs and the clothes of the rouping or comparison test was ccused, is equally misconceived. Mohd. Salim (supra) to contend o d n e r e n s . f e d e l . s e e s . d

& CRA-S-1373

that, in the establish the however, mis 18.1 evidentiary v source of sem blood group conclusively blood group The said deci a tool of iden 18.2 established b in her very Information names and th the Court and the occurrenc reasonable do absence of a manner, weak vaginal swab scientific evi does not lose absence of such comparison, e identity of the source of the splaced. In Mohd. Salim (supra), the Co value of blood group analysis fo men and held that the mere det on the clothes of the accused establish that the semen belonge in question was common to a ision turned on the limited proba ntification and has no application Here, the identity and particip by direct ocular evidence. The pr first statement (Ex. PA), on Report came to be registered. S he role attributed to each of the d categorically stated that they w ce. Thus, the identity of the app oubt by trustworthy direct evide a grouping or comparison test ken the prosecution case. The de bs and the clothes of the pros idence corroborating the allega e its evidentiary significance m the prosecution has failed to e semen. The said reliance is, ourt was dealing with the limited or the purpose of identifying the tection of semen of a particular d and the prosecutrix could not ed to the same individual, as the large section of the population. ative value of blood grouping as n to the facts of the present case. pation of the appellants stand rosecutrix named all the accused n the basis whereof the First She consistently reiterated their em during her deposition before were known to her even prior to pellants has been proved beyond ence. In such circumstances, the of the semen does not, in any etection of human semen on the ecutrix constitutes independent ation of sexual intercourse and merely because the source of the o , d e r t e . s . d d t r e o d e y e t d e

& CRA-S-1373

semen was 18.3 Lakha upon Dr. Ratinder devoid of me rape is essen is that of th Dhillon that cannot be r objective me of both thigh clothes of th prosecutrix, from, the pro Curiae was r does not adva

19. pertains to ce that the name PE), the appl memo (Ex. P associated w taken place d not scientifically compared The reliance placed on behalf of Dr. A.G. Bhagat (supra) to con Dhillon is confined merely to t erit. As already noticed, medica ntially corroborative in nature, w he prosecutrix. The opinion exp the possibility of sexual inter ead in isolation. When consid dical findings of blood over the hs, the detection of human seme e prosecutrix, and the cogent an the medical opinion lends ass osecution case. The decision reli endered in an altogether differen ance the case of the appellants. The next submission advanced ertain alleged lapses in the inve es of the accused do not find me lication seeking medical examin PH). It has further been argued t ith the investigation, although th during the daytime near a public with that of the accused. f appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ ntend that the opinion of PW-8 the possibility of rape is equally al evidence in a prosecution for whereas the substantive evidence pressed by PW-8 Dr. Ratinder rcourse could not be ruled out dered in conjunction with the introitus and on the inner aspect en on the vaginal swabs and the nd trustworthy testimony of the surance to, rather than detracts ied upon by the learned Amicus nt factual context and, therefore, d on behalf of the appellants stigation. It has been contended ention in the rough site plan (Ex. nation (Ex. PF) and the recovery that no independent witness was he occurrence is alleged to have road. . @

y r e r t e t e e s s , s d . y s e

& CRA-S-1373

19.1 omission to prepared dur does not affe essentially pr expected to c appellants do substantive e substantive e documents p omission to m cannot outw prosecution. 19.2 liable to be d is not the p independent committed in Dass on hear independent inference can during the tri 19.3 the part of

The aforesaid submissions d mention the names of the accu ring the course of investigation i ect the substratum of the prosec repared for the purpose for whic contain every detail of the prose oes not rest upon these documen evidence adduced during the t evidence is the testimony record prepared during the course of i mention the names of the appell weigh the otherwise cogent and Equally untenable is the conten discarded for want of examinatio prosecution case that the occu person. Rather, the prosecution n the fields and the prosecutrix ring her cries. In the absence o witness had actually witnesse n be drawn merely because n ial. The law is equally well settled t the investigating agency canno o not merit acceptance. The used in some of the documents is, at best, an irregularity which ution case. Such documents are ch they are intended and are not ecution case. The identity of the nts but stands established by the trial. It is well settled that the ded before the Court and not the nvestigation. Consequently, the lants in the aforesaid documents d reliable evidence led by the ntion that the prosecution case is on of an independent witness. It urrence was witnessed by any version is that the offence was x was rescued by PW-2 Gopal of any evidence to show that an ed the occurrence, no adverse no such witness was examined that deficiencies or omissions on ot, by themselves, constitute a e s h e t e e e e e s e s t y s l n e d n a

& CRA-S-1373

ground for d lapses are sh affected the c to an acquitt any omission adduced befo 19.4 case, this Cou not of such a case. The tes stands duly circumstance dent in the pr of the appell the strength o

20. that, since th subsequently the accused proceedings whether suffi accused. The based on th discarding an otherwise reliable hown to have caused serious prej core of the prosecution version, tal. The investigation is only a n or irregularity therein cannot e ore the Court. Applying the aforesaid princip urt finds that the alleged lapses p a nature as would undermine th stimony of the prosecutrix has be corroborated by the medical, es. The alleged omissions in the rosecution version nor cast any lants. Consequently, no benefit of the aforesaid submissions. The last submission advanced he order summoning Surjit Singh y set aside, the prosecution versio becomes doubtful. The conte under Section 319 Cr.P.C. w ficient material existed to summo e subsequent setting aside of t he material pertaining to his a e prosecution case. Unless such judice to the accused or to have , they do not entitle the accused means to collect evidence, and eclipse the substantive evidence ples to the facts of the present pointed out by the appellants are he credibility of the prosecution een found to be trustworthy and scientific and other attending investigation neither create any reasonable doubt upon the guilt can accrue to the appellants on on behalf of the appellants is h under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was on regarding the participation of ntion is devoid of merit. The were confined to the question on Surjit Singh as an additional the order summoning him was alleged involvement alone and h e d d e t e n d g y t n s s f e n l s d

& CRA-S-1373

cannot, by a against the pr 20.1 present appel Information R specific and d same version on all materi present app investigation 20.2 the strength o proceedings subsequent s no bearing w present appel reliable evide

21. witnesses. H finds that the case. 21.1 to have taken that the poli ny stretch of imagination, be c resent appellants. From the very inception, the pro llants in her statement (Ex. PA) Report came to be registered, a distinct role in the commission o n during her deposition before th ial particulars. The evidence reg pellants has, thus, remained n as well as during the course of t The liability of the present app of the evidence led against them initiated against another person etting aside of the order summon whatsoever on the merits of th llants and does not create any d ence establishing their guilt. The appellants, in support of However, on a careful appraisal e defence evidence does not cre DW-1 Joginder Singh, in whose n place, deposed that no such i ice had never visited the spot construed to dilute the evidence osecutrix consistently named the ), on the basis whereof the First and attributed to each of them a of the offence. She reiterated the e Court and remained consistent garding the participation of the unwavering throughout the trial. ellants has to be determined on m and not on the outcome of the n under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The ning Surjit Singh, therefore, has he prosecution case against the dent in the otherwise cogent and their defence, examined three of their testimonies, this Court eate any dent in the prosecution e fields the occurrence is alleged incident had occurred there and . The said testimony does not e e t a e t e e n e e s e d e t n d d t

& CRA-S-1373

advance the c eyewitness t incident cann place. Agricu occupation o even if the during the c amount to a otherwise co 21.2 prepared by h during the co same place o merely conta contradict the the testimony 21.3 506 IPC. Th categorically kill her in c testimony ha examination. 21.4 transaction b case of the defence. Admittedly, o the occurrence. The mere fa not lead to the conclusion that ultural fields are not expected or supervision of their owners Investigating Officer did not a course of investigation or visit an omission in the investigat ogent and reliable evidence DW-2 Ashwani Tuli, Draftsman him. A comparison of Ex. D-1 w ourse of investigation reveals th of occurrence. The site plan pr ains certain additional details reg e prosecution version on any m y of DW-2 Ashwani Tuli is of no The appellants have also assaile he submission, however, is with y deposed that after committing ase she disclosed the occurren s remained consistent and has no

The threat was extended dur y the accused, who were acting , DW-1 Joginder Singh is not an act that he did not witness the no such occurrence had taken d to remain under the constant throughout the day. Likewise, associate DW-1 Joginder Singh him, the same would, at best, tion and cannot outweigh the adduced by the prosecution. n, proved the site plan (Ex. D-1) with the rough site plan prepared hat both substantially depict the repared by DW-2 Ashwani Tuli garding the location and does not material particular. Consequently, o assistance to the defence. ed their conviction under Section hout merit. The prosecutrix has rape, the accused threatened to nce to anyone. This part of her ot been discredited during cross- ring the course of the same in furtherance of their common n e n t , h , e . ) d e i t , n s o r - e n

& CRA-S-1373

intention. In prosecution individually. postulates th furtherance o act as if it had 21.5 establishes th common inte extended to formed an int deter her fro specific threa Singh is of n equally liable

22. recorded her prosecution h beyond reas reliable, natu testimony of scientific evi age of the pr sixteen years such circumstances, it is neither should establish the precise w Section 34 IPC embodies the hat where a criminal act is com of their common intention, each d been committed by him alone. In the present case, the evid hat the appellants acted conjoin ention throughout the occurren the prosecutrix immediately tegral part of the same transactio m disclosing the offence. Conse at has been attributed to appella no avail. By virtue of Section 3 e for the offence punishable unde In view of the foregoing di reinabove, this Court is of th has succeeded in proving its c sonable doubt. The testimony ural and inspires confidence. It s f PW-2 Gopal Dass, the med idence in the form of the report rosecutrix has also been satisfa s on the date of the occurrence. T r necessary nor expected that the words uttered by each accused principle of joint liability and mmitted by several persons in h of them is liable for the entire

dence on record unmistakably ntly and in furtherance of their nce. The criminal intimidation after the commission of rape on and was evidently intended to equently, the contention that no ant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder 34 IPC, both the appellants are er Section 506 IPC. iscussion and for the reasons he considered opinion that the ase against both the appellants of the prosecutrix is wholly stands duly corroborated by the dical evidence as well as the of the Chemical Examiner. The actorily established to be below The discrepancies and infirmities e d d n e y r n e o o r e s e s y e e e w s

& CRA-S-1373

sought to be not strike at regarding the absence of comparison t of the order s reasons alrea relied upon o and do not ad

23. infirmity eith the learned tr conviction or Singh @ Lak Baljinder Sin 376(2)(g) IPC 506 read with

24. Singh @ Lakhwinder judgment of by the learn Gurdaspur, ar projected by the defence are mi the root of the prosecution ca e delay in the registration of th external injuries, the non-co test, the alleged lapses in the inv summoning Surjit Singh under S ady recorded, been found to be d on behalf of the appellants are dvance their case. Consequently, this Court find her in the appreciation of evidenc rial Court warranting interferenc r the order of sentence. The conv kha under Section 376(2)(g) IPC ngh @ Rajinder Singh by virtu C, as also the conviction of bo h Section 34 IPC, are hereby affi Accordingly, CRA-S-1241-SB Rajinder Singh and CRA-S Singh @ Lakha, being devoid conviction and the order of sen ned Additional Sessions Judge re affirmed. inor and inconsequential and do ase. Likewise, the submissions he First Information Report, the nduct of semen grouping or vestigation and the setting aside Section 319 Cr.P.C. have, for the devoid of merit. The authorities clearly distinguishable on facts ds no illegality, perversity or ce or in the findings recorded by ce in the impugned judgment of viction of appellant Lakhwinder C and the conviction of appellant ue of Explanation 1 to Section oth the appellants under Section irmed. -2004 preferred by Baljinder S-1373-SB-2004 preferred by d of merit, are dismissed. The ntence dated 26.04.2004 passed e (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, o s e r e e s s r y f r t n n r y e d ,

& CRA-S-1373

25. State counse awarded to th

26. sentence awa bonds and su

27. the valuable paid fee by Pending misc

28. appeal.

30.07.2026 Puneet i) ii)

It has been brought to the noti l that both the appellants have hem. Since the present appellants arded to them, they are not re urety bonds shall stand discharge Before parting, this Court place assistance rendered by the learn the High Court Legal Service cellaneous application(s), if any, A copy of this judgment be plac

(RUPI

Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? ce of this Court by the learned already undergone the sentence have already undergone the equired to surrender. Their bail d. es on record its appreciation for ned Amicus Curiae. He shall be es Authority as per the Rules. shall also stand disposed of. ced on the file of the connected INDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE

: Yes : Yes d e e l r e . d