The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 101 AMARJIT SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CRA-S-2249-SB-2004 Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 Vs. …..Appellant .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Pra(cid:24)bha Bali, AAG, Punjab. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Legal Reasoning
In a case arising out of FIR No. 127 dated 16.11.2003 under Sec(cid:24)ons 342/376/511 IPC registered at Police Sta(cid:24)on Kurali, District Ropar, accused-Amarjit Singh (now appellant) was convicted by the Court of learned Addi(cid:24)onal Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Rupnagar under Sec(cid:24)ons 342 and 354 IPC vide judgment dated 28.10.2004, though acqui;ng him under Sec(cid:24)ons 376/511 IPC. Vide a separate order dated 28.10.2004, the appellant was sentenced as under:- Offence under Sec7on Period of imprisonment Fine (in ₹) Default sentence Sec(cid:24)on 342 IPC Six months RI 500/- One month RI Sec(cid:24)on 354 IPC One and a half year RI 2000/- Three months RI Both the substan(cid:24)ve sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Against the abovesaid judgment of convic(cid:24)on and sentence, present appeal has been filed. 3.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that trial Court failed to take into considera(cid:24)on the inherent contradic(cid:24)ons appearing in the statements of the prosecu(cid:24)on witnesses and the improbable story of the PRIYANKA 2025.05.09 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-S-2249-SB-2004 prosecu(cid:24)on. Learned counsel has also made an alterna(cid:24)ve prayer that in case convic(cid:24)on is maintained, then the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone considering the fact that appellant is an old aged person and occurrence had taken place way back in November 2003 i.e., more than 21 years back. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed both the aforesaid prayers by poin(cid:24)ng out that prosecutrix was just a 10-12 years aged girl, who was a@empted to be raped by the appellant and that there was no reason to discard her tes(cid:24)mony, as she has given vivid details regarding the manner of crime. Though, learned State counsel concedes the fact that State has not filed any appeal against acqui@al of the appellant under Sec(cid:24)on 376/511 IPC, but she submits that looking into the nature of crime, the appellant does not deserves any leniency. She prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraised the record. 6. As per prosecu(cid:24)on allega(cid:24)ons, on 16.11.2003 at about 6:30 PM prosecutrix had gone to the shop of accused-appellant to purchase some merchandise (bukram). The said shop is being run by the accused in his house near Khubi Shah mandir on railway road. As she went in the shop and purchased the merchandise, the accused caught hold of her arm, dragged her in the rear room of the shop, threw her on the bed and tried to un(cid:24)ed the string of her salwar. In this process, the string of the salwar was broken. The prosecutrix raised hue and cry in the loud voice, a@rac(cid:24)ng one Ram Singh, the neighbourer of the prosecutrix, at which accused leA her and entered the adjoining room. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to Ram Singh, who caught hold the accused-Amarjit Singh. In the mean(cid:24)me, parents of the prosecutrix and other people also reached there. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to her parents also. Accused was taken to the police sta(cid:24)on, where statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. Accused was handed over to the police. FIR was registered. Necessary inves(cid:24)ga(cid:24)on was carried out and accused was put to trial. PRIYANKA 2025.05.09 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 4 CRA-S-2249-SB-2004 7. As the impugned judgment would reveal that the prosecutrix examined as PW3 fully supported prosecutrix version by giving details of the crime. She withstood the test of cross-examina(cid:24)on and could not been discredited in any manner. Her statement was found to have been corroborated by PW-2-Ram Singh, who was a@racted to the spot on hearing the loud voice of the prosecutrix. 8. The conten(cid:24)on of learned counsel for the appellant is that it is not believable that mother of prosecutrix will send her to the shop in the evening at 6:30 PM in a winter season, when it became dark, and further the police did not taken into possession the merchandise, which the prosecutrix had gone to purchase or the currency amount. It is also the conten(cid:24)on that prosecutrix was a tutored witness. 9. This Court does not find any merit in the above conten(cid:24)ons. It is not uncommon for a mother to send her child aged 12 years to purchase some merchandise from a shop located in the village itself. Simply because the prosecutrix child was sent at about 6:30 PM in a winter evening, in itself cannot be a reason disbelieve the prosecu(cid:24)on case. Further the cross-examina(cid:24)on of the prosecutrix by defence counsel failed to elicit anything, which could give a hint that she was a tutored witness. A child aged 12 years is able to understand the things clearly and so, there is nothing to show that she was tutored in any manner. 10. AAer going through the reasoning as given by the trial Court, this Court does not find any illegality therein so as to find any mis-apprecia(cid:24)on of evidence, or non- considera(cid:24)on of any material, which was produced on record. 11. As such, holding the present appeal against convic(cid:24)on to be devoid of any merit, the same is hereby dismissed. Convic(cid:24)on of the appellant under Sec(cid:24)on 342/354 IPC is maintained, considering the fact that prosecu(cid:24)on did not file any appeal against acqui@al of the appellant under Sec(cid:24)on 376/511 IPC. 12. Coming to the impugned order regarding the sentence, occurrence had taken place in November 2003 i.e., more than 21 years back. At that (cid:24)me, accused-appellant was 40 years of age, which means that by now he is about 62 years of age. Appellant has already undergone actual custody period of 27 days as PRIYANKA 2025.05.09 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 3 of 4 CRA-S-2249-SB-2004 per the custody cer(cid:24)ficate placed on record. 13. Although, these are the mi(cid:24)ga(cid:24)ng circumstances, but at the same (cid:24)me, Court cannot overlook the nature of crime commi@ed by the accused- appellant, inasmuch as he a@empted to commit rape upon a child aged 12 years belonging to his own Village. Though the trial Court has acqui@ed him of the charge under Sec(cid:24)on 376/511 IPC and was of the view that offence was covered under Sec(cid:24)on 354 IPC, this Court is not inclined to take a liberal view so as to release the appellant either on proba(cid:24)on or to sentence him for the period already undergone by him as is prayed by learned counsel for the appellant. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, impugned order of sentence is hereby modified only to the extent that sentence of the appellant under Sec(cid:24)on 354 IPC is reduced to 01 year rigorous imprisonment. The remainder of the sentence shall remain as it is. The appellant is directed to surrender before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar within 02 weeks posi(cid:24)vely so as to carry out the remaining sentence as per this order, failing which he will have to undergo en(cid:24)re sentence as imposed by the trial court. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar shall prepare the necessary jail warrant and send the appellant to the Jail concerned for carrying out the sentence. 15. Copy of this order be sent to CJM, Rupnagar immediately for compliance.
Decision
Disposed of. May 08, 2025 Pry (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Yes No PRIYANKA 2025.05.09 14:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 4