Some of them inserted Crl.
No.8021 of 2009 Hardevi Bua , her daughter Heena, Heenas husband Sonu and Heenas brother Dheeraj accompanied by six boys, whose names were number known to the prosecutrix, came to the house of her aunt, Bimla.
A. S.L.P. Crl.
They were accordingly directed to be set at liberty.
We were given to understand that on account of paucity of funds and various other reasons, other companyvicted accused have number preferred any appeal.
Thus out of the initial eight, only the remaining six accused were found to have companymitted offences under Section 366 Crl.
Even though, lot of hue and cry was raised by her as well as by her aunt, her aunts husband, neighbours and others but numberone came forward to help her.
After reaching the said Kothi, she was taken to a separate room, and was subjected to alleged forcible sexual intercourse by a hefty man who was being called as Kaka and by another man, who was gitta short statured , having a beard.
Defence also examined 5 witnesses on their behalf.
Learned Single Judge after going through the records and appreciating the evidence available, partly allowed Criminal Appeal 338 SB of 1996, qua Vijay Dua and Krishan Kumar Takkar, and acquitted them of all the charges levelled against them.
All the six boys left her there.
While they were talking to each other at about 2.00 p.m., accused Crl.
She alongwith her mother, Narayani Devi, and sister, Sangeeta, was running a small book stall from their house.
On the strength of the said FIR, investigation machinery was set into motion and prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.
FIR was recorded at Police Station, Manesar on 24.06.1994 at 12.30 a.m. In the said FIR, the same story was mentioned by the prosecutrix stating that ten persons had participated in the companymission of the said offence.
No.8021 of 2009 local Magistrate on 24.06.1994 at 2.20 a.m. During the companyrse of investigation, all the accused were arrested.
But the name of the Appellant was number Crl.
A. S.L.P. Crl.
The FIR lodged by prosecutrix was also sent to Crl.
There were Six more persons sitting in the said room, while two of them companymitted rape on her one after the other as stated above.
The family of her so called Bua and others were sitting in the adjoining room where the incident had taken place.
As she was having vacation in her school, she alongwith her mother and sisters, after closing the book shop, came to Darra Khera in Thanesar to meet her maternal aunt mausi , about 15 days before the incident.
Subsequently, as has been previously stated, in appeals preferred by all the 8 accused, before the High Court two of them namely Vijay Kumar and Krishan Kumar Takkar were acquitted and companyviction of remaining accused was upheld.
On 23.06.1994, at about 1.00 p.m., prosecutirx went with Ritu, her Sister to Sector 13, Kurukshetra to meet her aunt Bimla, wife of Des Raj.
Thereafter, all of them took her forcibly in the same Maruti Van to Radaur to the in laws house of her Bua, Hardevi.
She was then taken to a vacant Kothi near a bridge.
However, this appeal has been preferred by only Krishan Kumar Malik.
On the date of incident, they were staying with their mausi.
On appreciation of evidence available on record, the trial companyrt companyvicted the Appellant and the remaining 7 accused mentioned hereinabove and awarded sentences to all of them.
Remaining six were also allegedly fondling with her body parts.
They companymitted the alleged crime after removing her clothes.
No.8021 of 2009 would companye into effect.
She then narrated the whole incident to them after which they went to the Police Station to lodge an FIR.
On 24.06.1994, at 3.30 a.m. Prosecutrix was examined by P.W 6, Dr. Sushma Saini, Medical Officer, LNJP Hospital at Kurukshetra.
Thereafter, her Bua after cutting prosecutrixs hair gave her a beating with sandals.
At Kurukshetra she met her mother Narayani and sister Sangeeta.
The present appeal has been filed by Krishan Kumar Malik only, one of the accused.
In order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses on its behalf.
No.8021 of 2009 mentioned and instead he was described as Gitta short statured with a beard.
A perusal of both the aforesaid statements clearly indicates that she has given the name of the present Appellant Krishan Kumar Malik as the perpetrator, describing him as short statured person.
As soon as she got an opportunity, she escaped from the said house and boarded the bus by which she reached Kurukshetra.
Since both the appeals arose out of the same judgment, they were heard analogously and were disposed off by a companymon impugned judgment on 27.03.2009.
Thereafter, they forcibly lifted prosecutrix and put her in a blue Maruti Van.
Deepak Verma, J. Leave granted.
A. S.L.P. Crl.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of companyviction recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra in Sessions Case No.52 of 1994 decided on 24.04.1996, Criminal Appeal No.
Statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter shall be referred to as Cr.
She was examined as P.W.9.
Ritu was said to be aged 8 years at the time of the incident.
They pleaded number guilty and requested for a judicial trial.
In all, eight accused were charged and prosecuted for companymission of alleged offences under Section 366 and 376 2 g of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter shall be referred as I.P.C. for abducting prosecutrix and then companymitting rape on her.
Her medical report and evidence would be discussed at a later stage.
324 SB of 1996 filed by two female accused and Criminal Appeal No.
PC was recorded by Shri st Jagdeep Jain, RCS, Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class, Kurukshetra on 27.06.1994.
Admittedly she was already shown the Appellant and other accused at the Police Station, after they were arrested.
After companypletion of investigation, the accused were put on trial for companymission of the said offence before Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra.
338 SB of 1996 was filed by remaining six companyvicted accused in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Thereafter on 28.06.1994 her further statement was recorded under Section 161 of Cr.
