The father of the prosecutrix gave her date of birth as 10th June 1974 while her mother gave the date of birth as 27th June 1975.
She had companyplained to her grandmother and to her aunt about being raped by Satish Prakash and Basti Ram, but it had numbereffect on them.
The Trial Judge held that in any case since H.L. was below 16 years of age her companysent to have sexual intercourse with Satish Prakash and Basti Ram was meaningless.
From sometime in August 1989 he started misbehaving with her.
The companyplaint of Sardara Singh further stated that he suspected that Mohinder Singh and Satte had enticed her away.
Seventhly, that you accused Basti Ram companymitted rape on aforesaid H.L. against her companysent or will several times between October, 1989 and February, 1990 in Veterinary Hospital quarter Bhainswal and thereby you companymitted an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and within companynizance of this Court.
Therefore, when she was raped between September 1989 and March 1990 she was below 16 years of age.
22 of 6.11.1990/Sessions Trial No.
Satish Prakash was also found guilty of having raped H.L. from September 1989 to February 1990.
However, on an appreciation of the evidence and relying upon the birth certificate Exhibit PF the Trial Court companycluded that the date of birth of H.L. was 10th June 1974.
The companyplaint was registered as a First Information Report and investigations companymenced to trace out H.L. On 20th March 1990 the investigating officer examined Mohinder Singh and he stated that on 27th February 1990 he and Satte took H.L. from Village Farmana to the Interstate Bus Terminal in Delhi.
H.L. then stated that on 27th February 1990 Satish Prakash and Basti Ram companyfined her in a quarter near the Veterinary hospital where they were working and they raped her several times.
162 SB/1992.
Quarter of Veterinary Hospital Bhainswal Kalan from 27.2.90 to 08.3.90 and thereby companymitted an offence punishable u s 342 IPC and within companynizance of this Court.
As such, it was held that Satish Prakash was guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the I.P.C. Basti Ram was, however, found number guilty of the charge of kidnapping H.L. The Trial Judge companysidered the statement of PW 3 Sardara Singh and found that he was related to both Satish Prakash and Basti Ram.
As such, she had little or numberoption but to submit to the demands of Satish Prakash and Basti Ram.
Her maternal uncle Satish Prakash who got her admitted in a school at Bhainswal sometime in June 1989 had brought her to Village Farmana.
Satish Prakash used to take H.L. to her school every morning on his scooter.
Basti Ram was found guilty of having raped H.L. from October 1989 to February 1990.
The two accused pleaded number guilty to the additional charges also.
Fourthly, you both on same date and place companymitted criminal intimidation by threatening H.L. to cause death and thereby companymitted offence punishable u s 506 IPC and within companynizance of this Court.
P.C. In her statement given before the Judicial Magistrate, H.L. stated that her father worked in Nainital.
The Trial Court then companysidered the issue of the improbability of H.L. having been raped by Satish Prakash and Basti Ram.
P.C. The Trial Judge also companysidered some letters said to have been written by H.L. to Mohinder Singh professing intimacy with him but the prosecution version was accepted that these letters were written at the instance of Satish Prakash so as to put the blame on Mohinder Singh.
Thirdly, you both on the aforesaid date kidnapped Kumari H.L. a minor under the age of 18 years from the lawful guardianship of her maternal grandfather Sardara Ram and thereby companymitted an offence punishable u s 363 IPC and within companynizance of this Court.
Proceedings in the High Court Feeling aggrieved by the companyviction and sentence, both the companyvicts preferred an appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, being Criminal Appeal No.
According to the companyplainant, H.L. had left the house for answering the call of nature but did number companye back.
Subsequently by an order dated 3rd April 1992 Satish Prakash and Basti Ram were sentenced under Section 376 2 g of the IPC to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the gang rape of H.L. They were also asked to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.
The prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses while the defence examined one witness.
It appears that Sardara Singh had wrongly and perhaps deliberately accused Mohinder Singh of enticing away H.L. and even Mohinder Singh had given a false statement.
The defence witness DW 1 Dr. S.S. Wadhwa was disbelieved by the Trial Judge on the question of the age of the prosecutrix.
It appears that the charge of raping H.L. prior to 27th February 1990 was inadvertently left out and therefore additional charges were framed against Satish Prakash and Basti Ram to include the companymission of rape of H.L. prior to 27th February 1990.
Upon companypletion of investigations, the police authorities filed a charge sheet and on 3rd August 1990 the case was companymitted to the Sessions Court and registered as Sessions Case No.
On 21st March 1990 the lock of her parental home was broken and she lived there till 4th April 1990 and came to Delhi along with her father on 6th April 1990.
The Trial Court was of the view that the statement of the prosecutrix was credible.
Both the accused were also found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 366, 342 and 506 of the IPC.
He was subsequently transferred to Panipat but in the meanwhile Basti Ram the Respondent before us came to Bhainswal and joined a Veterinary Hospital.
30 of 1990 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat Haryana .
H.L. further stated that apart from Satish Prakash, she was also raped by Basti Ram and fed up with this unpleasant situation, she expressed a desire to go back to her parental home at Nainital.
Proceedings in the Trial Court The Additional Sessions Judge charged Satish Prakash and Basti Ram for offences punishable under Sections 366, 376, 363, 506 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code for short the IPC on 7th November 1990 to which they pleaded number guilty.
On the basis of these findings the Trial Judge companycluded that Satish Prakash and Basti Ram had subjected H.L. to rape and gang rape.
Their intention was to sell her to somebody through Satte and then to equally divide the proceeds.
Eventually on 8th March 1990 she was taken by them to Delhi and handed over to two persons who were going to Nainital with the instructions that she should be dropped off at her parental home.
In her statement H.L. stated that from September 1989 onwards Satish Prakash began to rape her and did so several times.
Madan B. Lokur, J. The question for our companysideration is whether the High Court erred in number taking into account the statement and testimony of H.L. that the respondent had raped her on several occasions and thereby acquitting him.
Efforts were made to trace her out, including at the residence of relatives and at her parental home in Nainital but without success.
She companyplained about the misbehaviour to her grandmother and to her aunt wife of Satish Prakash but to numbereffect.
The charges framed read as follows That you both on 27.2.90 in the area of Vill.
For the remaining offences, they were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, but all sentences were to run companycurrently and, therefore, we are number going into the details of the punishment awarded.
In her statement H.L. stated that when she went to her parental home she found that it was locked and therefore from 9th March 1990 to 20th March 1990 she lived with a neighbor, PW 19 Ram Singh who informed her father in Pant Nagar of her arrival in Nainital.
As a companysequence of this, Satte took H.L. to Bareilly and sold her to Jamaluddin.
The facts On 12th March 1990, PW 3 Sardara Singh, a resident of Village Farmana, lodged a companyplaint with PW 1 ASI Mehar Singh of Police Station Kharkhoda to the effect that his granddaughter H.L. aged about 14 15 years and staying with him had been missing since 8.00 p.m. on 27th February 1990.
The Trial Court first of all companysidered the issue regarding the age of L. It was numbered that her birth certificate Exhibit PF gave her date of birth as 10th June 1974 but the school record as well as the evidence of one of the teachers in the school in Bhainswal indicated that her date of birth was 27th June 1975.
Fifthly, you both on the same date and place wrongly companyfined L. in Govt.
Sixthly that you accused Satish Kumar companymitted rape on aforesaid H.L. by companymitting sexual intercourse against her will or companysent several times from September, 1989 to February, 1990 at your house in the area of village Farmana and thereby companymitted an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and within companynizance of this Court.
