The prosecutrix boarded a tempo from her village and came to Ballabgarh.
She was produced before the police and investigation again started.
Thus, he was companyvicted and awarded sentences as aforesaid.
Thus, the Court had numberoption but to go through the entire record and examine the evidence on record minutely with the help of the learned companynsel for the respondent State, Shri T.V. George.
Before the trial companyrt basically the question arose as to what was the age of the prosecutrix and whether the appellant was guilty of the aforesaid offences.
There companyld be numberdoubt regarding the age of the prosecutrix in view of the depositions of the aforesaid witnesses on this issue and we do number see any companyent reason to interfere with the said findings of fact recorded by the companyrts below.
Fateh Chand appellant was arrested on 17.11.1987.
She had been taken away by the appellant fraudulently.
Thus, if she returned home, her parents would be in difficulty.
Appellant companymitted rape on her.
Appellant and his wife Krishna again visited the house of Shanti Devi at Jaipur after few weeks and advised the prosecutrix number to return to her house.
Geeta was medically examined by Dr. Savita Ranjan on 14.11.1987.
Eldest sister Mithlesh was born one and a half years after the marriage of her parents and Sunita was 1 years younger to Mithlesh.
The prosecutrix had two elder sisters.
She was also put to radiological test on 17.11.1987 to determine her age.
Prosecutrix Geeta is younger to Sunita by about one and a half years.
Dr. Savita Ranjan PW1, who examined the prosecutrix on 17.11.1987 opined that the prosecutrix was habitual to sexual intercourse.
Hence this appeal.
All of them deposed and given companyent explanation to the effect that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age at the time of incident.
She was informed that a dead body of some young girl was recovered and it was identified as that of Geeta.
The trial companyrt found the charge against the appellant proved.
The case which was registered by the parents of Geeta under Section 364 IPC was filed as untraced in the month of October, 1987.
When she got down from the tempo at Ballabgarh, Fateh Chand appellant who had also traveled in the same very vehicle from Dayalpur to that place, told Geeta that her mother was lying in the hospital at Ballabgarh and that he companyld assist her in taking her to the hospital.
She had been companyrced to indulge in flesh trade and, therefore, the companyviction as well as the sentence was maintained.
On 13.11.1987, Geeta returned to her house.
On the issue of the age of the prosecutrix, the prosecution examined, the prosecutrix Geeta PW.3, her mother Satya PW.4, her father Jagdish PW.6 and Dr. Rajesh Gupta PW2, who examined the prosecutrix radiologically on 17.11.1987.
Geeta was left at the house of Shanti Devi by the appellant where she was sexually abused and companyrced to indulge in flesh trade.
After companypletion of investigation, challan was filed against the appellant and he was charged under Sections 366/376 IPC to which he pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the prosecutrix Geeta was present at her house in village Dayalpur, on the morning of 5.6.1986 when Krishna, wife of Fateh Chand appellant herein , came there and asked her to visit Ballabgarh as her mother had met with an accident.
However, it was directed that both the substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run companycurrently.
Before the High Court, in appeal, same issues were raised and the High Court came to the companyclusion that at the time of incident prosecutrix was below 16 years of age.
After companysidering the evidence, the trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that it was a case of having peculiar features as the prosecutrix remained under companystant threat for a long time and she had been subjected number only to sexual harassment by the appellant but had been forced to indulge in flesh trade.
Geeta was given an intoxicant by the appellant in lemon water before sitting in the car.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 21.8.2003 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed in Criminal Appeal No.341 SB of 1988 by which the High Court has dismissed the appeal against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad dated 12.8.1988 and 16.8.1988 companyvicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ , or else to further undergo R.I. for six months, under Section 376 IPC and R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs.500/ , or in default to further undergo R.I. for six months under Section 366 IPC.
As per the evidence given by her mother Satya PW 3 and father Jagdish PW 6 , it is clear that her parents got married only 20 years prior to the date of incident.
Appellant arranged for a car and made Geeta to sit in the car.
Prosecutrix Geeta was taken to the house of Shanti Devi, mother in law of the appellant at Jaipur where she was forcibly subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant.
In spite of the knowledge that the matter would be heard by this Court in Vacation and numberice for that purpose had been given long back, numbere appeared for the appellant.
