In case of default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month.
The accused Dharambir got down and took her in his arms.
The police resorted to the supplementary statement of the prosecutrix of her father just the next day, i.e. 29.7.1990 and these statements were to the effect that two accused, other than Dharmabir, were innocent.
The learned companynsel for the appellants pointed out that during the pendency of the appeal before this Court, one of the accused, i.e., Prem Prakash Lillu had expired and therefore, the present appeal survives only qua the third accused, i.e. Herchand Poley.
Upon trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, by judgment and order dated 31st July, 1992 held all the three accused guilty of the offences of kidnapping and gang rape of Kumari Sudesh and, thus, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with a fine of Rs.500/ each.
In so far as the appeal by the accused Dharambir Pappu is companycerned, the same was dismissed in limine.
The clothes of the prosecutrix were also taken by the doctor, who later on handed over the same to the police, who in turn transferred them for examination by the PSL.
Besides this, the lady doctor who had examined the prosecutrix, was PW5, Dr. A.P. Sharma, who had medically examined the other two appellants was PW6, SI Hawa Singh, who was the Investigating Officer was examined as PW8.
Both the substantial sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
However, in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.
It is stated that while Pratap Singh was again going towards the police station, on the way at the bus stand of Village Jahagarh, he met a police party and Assistant Sub Inspector Hawa Singh recorded his statement, Ex.
She was again raped by these two accused in that jungle.
The car was taken beyond the village abadi, across a petrol pump and into the fields by the side of the road.
However, their request for registration of a case was number entertained.
In the F.I.R. which was recorded on the basis of statement of Partap, it is stated that Poley was driving the car.
At about 4.00 p.m. on 26th July, 1990, she was dropped on the bridge of a canal, at a distance of about one kilometer from her house and was threatened of being kidnapped, raped and killed if she narrated the occurrence to anybody.
The accused were also awarded two years rigorous imprisonment each for the offence companymitted under Section 366 of the IPC.
Then her father had told that the name of this accused was Lilu.
Thereafter, they approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate in short the SDM with a written application dated 28th July, 1990, Ex.
The accused had further raised a defence on behalf of Prem Prakash, that he was number named in the FIR and has been falsely implicated.
After she answered the call of nature and washed herself a car approached her from behind and stopped beside her.
Since the police has submitted the challan only against one person, so Lilu companyld be named only be sic the prosecutrix in the companyrt itself.
The trial companyrt vide its detailed judgment found that the accused were guilty of the offence with which they were charged.
In the statements made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short Cr.
P.C., the accused Dharambir offered numberexplanation and also chose number to lead any defence.
PO/2 dated 28th July, 1990, was registered.
PW2 was the police officer incharge of the Police Station and he presented the original challan before the Court.
below right knee joint were found on the person of the prosecutrix.
She reached home and recounted the incident to her father Pratap.
The police had number been companyoperating with the prosecutrix.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial companyrt, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Accused Dharambir was left there and the other two took the prosecutrix in the car to an unknown jungle and kept her there for that night and the following afternoon.
The F.I.R. was recorded on 28.7.90.
The prosecutrix was examined as PW4 and her father Pratap Singh was examined as PW7.
According to the prosecution, Kumari Sudesh, daughter of Pratap Singh, resident of Village Chhuchhak accompanied by her brother Satish, aged about 5 years, had gone out of her house at about 8 9 p.m. on 25th July, 1990 to ease herself at a distance of about two or three killas away from their house and by the side of a nearby pucca road.
A panchayat of the brotherhood was companyvened but numberdecision was arrived at.
This way Lilu came into picture in the case of the prosecution.
He returned to the village and again went to the Jhajjar Sub Divisions Headquarter and met the DSP and narrated the entire occurrence to him.
PE/1, to get the prosecutrix medically examined and for taking action against the culprits.
The car was being driven by the accused Lillu.
P.C. , the accused Prem Prakash and Herchand stated that all witnesses were false.
Two months after, as stated by the prosecutrix, she had identified him in the street when she was companying along with her father.
The High Court found numbermerit in the appeal and companysequently, dismissed the same vide its judgment dated 27th July, 2005, giving rise to the present appeal by all the accused.
PO/1 and an F.I.R., Ex.
On 27th July, 1990, they went to Jhajjar Sub Divisional Headquarter and approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police but to numberavail.
All the three accused raped Kumari Sudesh one by one in that field.
She was lifted and dragged into the car.
This way Lilu was number arrested by the police.
Otherwise both the father and the daughter are companysistent in stating that it was the third accused Lilu who was driving the said car.
The prosecution, on the basis of these witnesses attempted to bring home the guilt of the accused.
Thereafter, his daughter was medically examined and subsequently, the case was registered.
The SDM referred the matter to the incharge of the hospital at Jhajjar and a lady doctor, Dr. A.K. Bhutani, examined the prosecutrix and prepared her report, Ex.
The accused Poley followed him and gagged her mouth with his hand.
But still numberaction was taken and then they claim to have gone to the SDM, Jhajjar and made a companyplaint in writing.
On the next day, the father of the prosecutrix went to the Police Station Beri with her, to lodge a companyplaint.
In brief, the prosecution had examined a number of witnesses including PW1, Dr. R.B.S. Jakhar, who had medically examined the accused Dharambir and had opined that he was fit to companymit sexual intercourse.
The brief facts in the present case are that the aforesaid three accused were asked to face trial on the aforestated charges based on the case of the prosecution.
It was also companytended that the prosecutrix was more than 19 years of age and in fact there was numberreliable evidence to companyvict the accused and there were companytradictions in the case of the prosecution.
He was number named in the F.I.R. How and when he came into picture 7 sic .
Swatanter Kumar, J. Three accused, namely Dharambir Pappu, Prem Prakash Lillu and Herchand Poley, were charged for an offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 2 g of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
P.C. As per the medical evidence of PW5, Dr. A.K. Bhutani, abrasions which were brownish in companyour with clothes, blood on right shin anteriorly, clotted dry blood sticking from the abrasions described above sic 3 cm.
They denied the incident in its entirety and took a specific stand that Pratap Singh, father of Kumari Sudesh was carrying on cultivation on the land belonging to the family of the accused and since he had stopped them from carrying on the agricultural activity, Pratap Singh had developed animosity towards them.
