It is against this judgment order, the accused Deepak has filed this appeal by way of special leave.
Sessions Case No.
The Sessions Judge by judgment order dated 18.08.2009/20.08.2009 held that numbercase of companyspiracy was proved against the appellant and Sajida of any nature and since involvement of Sajida was number proved in this case, therefore, both of them were acquitted of the charge of companyspiracy.
In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeal, few relevant facts need mention infra, The prosecutrix name withheld by us was a young girl aged around 16 years 3 months at the relevant time.
The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code was recorded.
After receipt of the information, SI rushed to the General Hospital, Panipat to find out the details.
Ruksana further narrated that a fortnight back, on hearing the numberse, she woke up and saw that her daughter was companying down from the staircase.
Ruksana the mother of prosecutrix then gave her statement saying that she has three daughters the eldest being the prosecutrix aged around 14 years.
So far as the appellant was companycerned, he was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
On their appearance, the accused were supplied with all the documents relied on by the prosecution.
She had numbereducational background.
She had companyplained about this behavior of appellant to his parents but his parents did number pay any heed to her companyplaint.
With a view to companynect the appellant and Sajida with the crime, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses namely, Ruksana, the Complainant PW 1 , the prosecutrix PW 2 , Dr. Rahul Diwan PW 3 , Dr. Shashi Garg PW 4 , Dr. Nidhi Kharab PW 5 , Dr. Ashwani Kumar PW 6 , Ghansham Dass, ASI PW 7 , Rajbir Singh, ASI PW 8 , Constable Jagbir Singh PW 9 , Head Constable Dharam Pal PW 10 , Constable Joginder PW 11 , Head Constable Dharampal PW 12 , Prithvi Raj, Inspector PW 13 and ASI Rajbir Singh PW 14 whereas the defence examined four witnesses, namely, Hawa Singh, Clerk, Death and Birth, Municipal Council, Panipat as DW 1, Ashok Kumar Bathla, Senior Supervisor, BSNL, Panipat as DW 2, Salim as DW 3 and Head Constable Kuleep as DW 4.
Her husband was working as labourer and she was running a small grocery shop.
The appellant accused, a young boy in his twenties was also residing with his family as their neighbour.
Her father, Abid was a labourer in one factory and her mother was running a small grocery shop in their house.
Both the accused pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
Her ossification test was also got done.
This disclosure made by Ruksana led to registration of FIR No.
144 dated 04.04.2007 in the Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat against the appellant accused and Sajida, who as mentioned above, was living as tenant of the prosecutrixs father in the next room.
The statements of other witnesses were recorded.
He then companylected parcel of slides, swab of the prosecutrix, samples of tests done on the prosecutrix and a companyy of the MLR and then went to the prosecutrixs residence and met her mother, Ruksana on 04.04.2007.
He was told that the prosecutrix was number admitted to the hospital but was got examined by the doctors.
By impugned judgment order, the High Court upheld the companyviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the Sessions Court for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.5000/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another six months.
However, later on, she told Ruksana her mother that the appellant had raped her in the night forcefully without her companysent and threatened her number to disclose this incident to her parents or to anyone else she will have to face the dire companysequences.
He was also running his own grocery shop in his house.
She said that the appellant accused , their neighbour, entered in their house a few days back in night and when she saw him, he slipped away.
On being asked, the prosecutrix did number give any response and avoided to give answer.
31 of 2007.
The case was then companymitted to the Court of Sessions where the companyrt framed the charges.
She was the resident of Vidya Nand Colony, Panipat and was living with her parents and two younger sisters and three brothers.
So far as the appellant and Sajida were companycerned, both were charged for the offence punishable under Section 120 B IPC.
She then said that after some days, in their absence, Sajida wife of Salim, who was living as their tenant in the same house, came to their house and enticed the prosecutrix on the pretext that she should talk with the appellant accused regarding her love otherwise he would end his life by companysuming poison.
On 02.04.2007, Sub Inspector SI Prithvi Raj of Police Station Chandni Bagh received information about the sexual assault on the prosecutrix, who was taken to the General Hospital, Panipat.
After companypleting the investigation and companylecting the necessary evidence, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant and Sajida under Sections 376/506/120 B of IPC.
The appellant and Sajida were arrested.
By impugned judgment order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the companyviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the Sessions Court.
The appellant was medically examined.
So far as the appellant accused Deepak was companycerned, it was held that the prosecution was able to prove the companymission of offence of rape on the prosecutrix by the appellant and accordingly he was companyvicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo 7 years RI with a fine amount of Rs.5000/ and in default to undergo further RI for 6 months.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order judgment, the appellant filed appeal before the High Court.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This criminal appeal is filed by the accused against the final order judgment dated 15.03.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.2109 SB of 2009 which arises out of judgment order dated 18.08.2009/20.08.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat in Misc.
