Jaswant Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab

which formal FIR (Ext. PD/1) was issued on the same day. 4

4. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Renu

Baweja (PW1) on July 8, 1989. The matter was thereafter

investigated by Inspector Piara Singh (PW8). The accused

were also examined medically by Dr. Rajiv Bhalla (PW11)

on July 10, 1989 and were found fit to perform sexual

intercourse.

5. The prosecutrix (PW2) is a crucial witness and the

whole case centres around her evidence. She passed out

Matriculation in the year 1989. It is in her evidence that

she was physically carried to the house of Jaswant Singh,

appellant herein, where she was thrown on a cot; that

thereafter, the appellants one after the other committed

rape upon her; on returning home, she narrated the

incident to her parents; on the next day, her parents went

to police station after informing Sarpanch and the

Lamberdar of the village. Smt. Surjit Kaur (PW4) is none

other than the mother of the prosecutrix who has

corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix. Darshan

Singh, Head Master, Government High School, Talwandi

Rai (PW6) was examined to prove the certificate 5

(Ext.PC) where the prosecutrix's date of birth is

mentioned as February 3, 1973. She was aged about 16

years as on the date of occurrence. Dr. G.S. Grewal

(PW10) has medically examined the prosecutrix on 19th

July, 1989 and found certain injuries on her person which

were meticulously noticed in judgments of the trial Court

as well as the appellate Court which need no reproduction.

6. The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of

evidence and on an elaborate consideration of the entire

matter, convicted appellants for both the offences

punishable under Sections 376 and 366, IPC. The

appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence, meticulously

analyzed the same and found no merit in the appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly

contended before us that there was unexplained delay in

lodging the FIR which itself casts a serious doubt on the

whole of prosecution case. We are not impressed by the

submission. It is in the evidence of PW4 that she went to

the police station the next day after the occurrence to

lodge the FIR but the police did not take note of it. On 6

5.7.1989, a written complaint (Ext. DA) was lodged before

SSP, Ludhiana which was marked to DSP who visited the

village on July 8, 1989 and recorded the statement (Ext.

PD) of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix clearly narrated

the sequence of events in detail as to the manner in which

the appellants committed the crime against her. The DSP,

for the obvious reasons, made an attempt to sabotage the

entire prosecution case as is evident from his own

evidence. The DSP who was examined as DW2, brought

into existence a Panchayat Nama (Ext. DB), the recitals

whereof read as under:

"In the presence of the village Panchayat and respectables (name of the prosecutrix) adopted daughter of Jagir Singh, Jat, resident of Talwani Rai stated that on the night of 25-6-1989 of her own free will she had gone to the "Chari" field of Rana alias Kuldip Singh, accused son of Shri Harbans Singh, Jat, resident of Talwandi Rai at about 10 p.m. That field was nearer her house. There, she stayed with him for about 2 or 3 hours. When she returned home, she found her father and mother awake. In order to save Rana, accused from them, she falsely named Jaswant Singh, Charan Singh and Major Singh that they had forcibly kidnapped her. In fact, they had not kidnapped her. The statement which she had made for the registration of the case was false. Dated : 17.7.1989."

7 8. There is no explanation forthcoming as to what

transpired between 8.7.1989 when the FIR was issued on

the strength of the statement made by the prosecutrix

and 17th July, 1989 when the Panchayat Nama (Ext. DB)

was got recorded by the DSP (DW2). On the other hand,

we are required to notice that the prosecutrix and her

mother (PW4) filed a further complaint (Ext. PHH) before

the SSP, Ludhiana on 22.7.1989 alleging that the

signatures of the prosecutrix were obtained on certain

blank papers and similarly some thumb impressions of

PW4 were also obtained. It was also alleged therein that

DSP Joginder Singh (DW2) had threatened them to face

serious consequences if they do not give statement in

favour of the accused. It was further alleged that she was

subjected to harassment and some of the Constables

caused her injuries. The prosecutrix was medically

examined on 19.7.1989 by Dr. G.S. Grewal (PW10) and

found as many as four injuries on her person and opined

that probably they were caused about three days prior to

the medical examination. In her statement, the

prosecutrix has categorically stated that "no Panchayat 8

assembled on 17.7.1989. I did not see any Panchayat

Nama at Jagraon on 17.7.1989". The signatures were

obtained from her on 17.7.1989 after beating her with

`leather pattas'. She stated "my signatures had been

obtained by the police on 17.7.1989 after beating me with

leather pattas".

9. The sequence of events in clear terms demonstrates

the sinister and diabolical role played by the police and in

particular, by the DSP, Joginder Singh (DW2) to sabotage

the entire prosecution in order to protect the accused for

obvious reasons. We are neither surprised nor shocked at

the conduct of the DSP inasmuch as such instances are

galore in this country where the police, instead of

protecting law, take the law in to their own hands for

extraneous considerations. We have no doubt whatsoever

that Ext. DB, whether it is characterized as Panchayat

Nama or whatever else be, it has been brought into

existence and is the brainchild of the said police officer

(DW2). The contents thereof cannot be taken into

consideration for whatsoever purposes. This document in 9

no manner creates any doubts in our minds as to the

truthfulness of the statement made by the prosecutrix in

her complaint to the SSP on 5.7.1989 and her statement

of 8.7.1989 based on which the FIR was issued.

10. Considering this, we find no merit in the submission

made by the learned counsel for the appellants that FIR

was ante timed and brought into existence so as to falsely

implicate the appellants. There is no reason to disbelieve

the evidence of prosecutrix and her mother (PW4) that

attempts were made to lodge the FIR on the next day of

the occurrence of the incident but the police did not

cooperate and initiated any action. The attempt on the

part of the police to protect the accused from day one of

the occurrence is clear and obvious.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants made an

attempt to contend that the appellants were falsely

implicated in the present case due to enmity between the

parents of prosecutrix and the appellants with regard to

construction of a wall. The courts below having considered

the similar submission rejected the same and observed 10

that the alleged dispute over a common wall was not of

such a grave nature compelling the entire family of the

prosecutrix to go to the extent of putting at stake its

reputation and fair name of a young girl child to settle the

scores with the accused. We find no merit in the

submission. The defence set up in this regard is totally

untenable and cannot be accepted.

12. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the

prosecutrix and her mother (PW4) so as to doubt the

prosecution case.

13. The trial Court as well as the High Court have, after

considering the evidence carefully, given good reasons in

support of the order of conviction. This Court, in exercise

of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of

India, does not act as a third appellate Court. Suffice it to

hold that the verdict in the instance case did not result in

any miscarriage of justice. The impugned judgment is not

an erroneous one. Nor the judgment is vitiated on account

of any error either in appreciation of evidence or

application of legal principles.

11

14. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, made an

attempt to appeal to the Court to reduce the sentence of

imprisonment awarded by the Courts below. Having

regard to the gravity of the crime, we are not inclined to

consider the request to reduce the sentence.

15. No other point is urged. For these reasons, we

confirm the order of conviction passed by the High Court

and dismiss these appeals.

............................................J. (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)

............................................J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

NEW DELHI, November 5, 2009.