Partly allowed

Jatinder v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 May 2013CRA-S/144/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against conviction for kidnapping, abduction, and rape of a girl below 13, the High Court upheld the conviction. The Court reduced the total sentence from ten years to seven years on the ground that it is below the minimum statutory limit and the appellant was an adult at the time of the offence, while affirming the fine.

What did the court decide?

The conviction was confirmed but the sentence was reduced from ten years to seven years under Section 376 IPC; all sentences to run consecutively.

Jatinder Vs State of Haryana — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

Criminal AppealNol44SB 2011

¶3

1 1

¶4

¶5

Criminal AppealNo44 SB 2011 Dateofdecision 23 52013

Jitender

versus

Stateof Haryana

CORAM¹ HONBLE MRJUSTICE KCPURI

¶10

Present1 Shri MLSaini Advocateand Shri Saini Advocatefor the Shri ShekharMudgalAssistant AdvocateGeneral Haryana

¶11

KeCPURI Je

¶12

hasdirectedthe presentappealagainstthe dated7102010 andorder dated1402010 passedby^DrBharat

¶13

Bhushan Parsoon leamed Sessions Judge Faridabad vide which hasbeenconvictedunder Sections363 366 and 376 of

¶14

the IPC and sentenced^to undergorigorous for^a periodof

¶15

JOYTI RANI five years and^to pay^a flne of Rs30001 and in defaultof payinentof One 2016.03.28 16:19I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

to furtherundergorigorous for^a periodof 6vemonthsunder

¶17

ANITA 2014.11.26 15: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh

¶18

¶19

Criminal AppealN0144 SB 2011

¶20

¶21

¶22

Section363 of the IPC to rigorous for^a periodof sevenyearsandto pay^a fine of Rs70001 andin default ofSne to further rigorous for^a periodof seven months underSection366 of the IPC and^to rigorous for^a period^of ten years and to pay a Sne of Rs 00001 and in defaultof of fine^to forther rigorous for^a periodof tenmonthsunderSection³⁷⁶ of theIPC AIl^{thesentences were} orderedto run

¶23

2 The^case of^the in brief is^that on 18A009 at about 700am his aged^{13years hadgonetoschoolinold} FaridabadShedid not retum afler her schooltimingswere^over Parents got worried made8antic search for her He continued for her Duringthe^course of^hersearch flnger^of suspicion went towardshis neighbourJitenderthat his with^an intentiontomarry herhadbeenenticedaway On the basis thereofFIR^was got^{recordedandthe} were commencedDuringthe course of the victim^was recovered8om the company of accused Jitender^on 2242009 andthe hadidentifledhis daughterThe victim^was medico examined^on the requestof the policeby Dr Chauhan The Medical Officer had opinedthatpossibilityof sexual intercourse couldnot be ruled out The accused^was arrested After of the challan againstthe accused was

¶24

The^case wascommitted^to the Courtof Session byShriVimal

¶25

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

ANITA 2014.11.26 15: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh3

¶27

¶28

Criminal AppealNo144 SB 2011

¶29

¶30

Sapra^{leamedAdditional ChiefJudicial} Faridabadvide order dated 12009 The accused^was chargesheetedThe accusedpleadednot guilty^tothe charge^{and claimedtrial}

¶31

4 In order to establishits^case examined Dr Ram Bhagat^{MedicalofYicer PWLl} MHC Om Parkash PW29^{Sarwan Kumar} 6PW3I Lady^Constable Manju^Bala 6PW4I^MahenderPal PW59^Om ParkashMalhotra6PW69Govind Ram fatherofthe as 6PW 79 herself as PW8 ConstablePritam SinghPWa99 Constable Harbir Singh PW109 Dr Rajni^Chauhan 6PWe11l ASI NirotamLal PWe129andclosedthe evidence

¶32

5 In his^statement recordedunder Section313 of the CrPC the accusedclaimed^to be innocentand has beenfalsely in this^case He^examined SattoDW1 Sita^Ram DW2 RambirDW3 and Kumar Pal DW4 in defence

¶33

6 The trialCourt after hearingthe learnedcounselfor the parties convicted^{andsentencetheaccused} dated7102010 and orderdated14102010 as aforesaid

¶34

7 dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgmentdated 7102010 andorderdated1402010 the presentappealhas been directed by^the

¶35

8 I^{haveheard learnedcounselforthe} parties^{and have gone}

¶36

therecordsofthe^case with their able assistance

¶37

JOYTI RANI 9 Learned^counselfor the has submitted that 2016.03.28 16:19I attest to the accuracy and 2014.11.26 15: 04 integrity of this document

¶38

ANITA 2014.11.26 15: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh

¶39

prosecutrtX the and stayedwith him for

¶40

¶41

Criminal AppealNol44 SB 2011

¶42

¶43

1 1

¶44

four daysThe leamedtrial Court has wroIiglyassessedthe age of the below 16 years In fact she^was more than16 yearsofageand wascapableofgivingher consent by8ee will Thetrial Courthaswrongly reliedupon thecertificateofprivateschool the age Om Parkash Malhotra Principal^{Sewa BhartiSchoolSector18} Jhuggi^{Faridabad has} proved^{thecertiflcate} ExPG However that certifIcateis not basedupon the birthcertificateof the nor any So the age of the may^{be taken asmore} than 16 years^{andthe accusedbe} 8om thechargeslevelledagainsthim 10 LearnedStatecounselhassupportedthe and order of thetrial Court 11 I have consideredthe submissionmade by both the sides and havegonethroughthe recordsofthe^case with theirable assistance 12 Coiinsel for the has not the fact that the Even the factum of sexual inter coursewiththe is not but themain^stress ofcounselfor the is age of the Om ParkashMalhotra PW6 has provedthe certiflcate of the in respectof^her 5 standardclassexaminationissued byBlock EducationOfficer Faridabad As per this certiflcate dateof birthof the was 10101996the occurrence is statedto be relatingto 182009 So from the perusalofsaid certificate the age of was much below 16 years^on the dayof

¶45

occurrence Father of the has made a^statement that he^was

¶46

ANITA2014.11.26 15: 04marriedin the year 1995 So^even to his testimonythe age ofthe True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh

¶47

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶48

prosecutrlXwas below^16years The has also givenher age

¶49

¶50

Criminal AppealNo144 SB 2011

¶51

¶52

below 16 years So all theseevidencecannot be brushaside bymere fact thatbirth certificateof hasnot beenplacedon file So the age assessedbythetrial Courtin respectofthe doesnot call for any interference

¶53

13 Since the prosecutrixwas below 16 years of age^so in these clrcumstancesOffenceunder Sections363 366 and 376 of the IPC^are clearly^madeout againsttheaccused

¶54

14 So far^as the defencewltnesses by^{theaccused are} concernedthey do not advancethe^case of^the accused^inanymanner SattoDW hassimplystatedthat motherof the came to them and shownher with Hr that is majorat that time^isbelied by the voluminousevidencementionedabove ThetestimoniesSita Ram DW RambirDW3 and Kumar Pal DW4 are also not renderingany helpto the accused^as the was below 16 years of age However none of the witnesseshave statedthat there^was actual between the andthe

¶55

15 Leamed counsel for the has furthersubmittedthat Dr RajniChauhan PW 111has stated that was referred to and dental for^age veriflcationNo such^verication wasconductedand^as such the age ofthe is^more than 18years 16 I^{haveconsideredthesubmissionmade} by^{boththesides and} havegonethroughtherecordsofthe^case with their able assistance

¶56

As^{discussedabovethere} is^{voluminousevidence} regarding

¶57

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶58

ANITA 2014.11.26 15: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original17 PHHC,Chandigarh As

¶59

¶60

Criminal AppealNo144 SB 2011

¶61

¶62

¶63

age ofthe below 16 hasravished^a girlbeiow 13yearsofage

¶64

18 Learnedcounsel for the appellanthas submittedthat^sentence awarded^1S harsh in nature The has already lncarceration for a period more than four years So the sentence be reduced^to theperiodalready He has rthercontendedthatthe

¶65

was just 20 years of age at the time of pronouncementof the impugned andhe^was just^above18years of^age at^thetime of

¶66

occurrence So prayerhasbeenmade for reductionin^sentence

¶67

19 I haveconsideredthe submissionmadebyboththe sidesand havegonethroughtherecordsofthe^case with theirableassistance 20 The trial Court hasawardedsentete of for^ten years^{underSection376 ofthe} IPC In his statement recordedunder Section

¶68

313 CrPC age of the has beenmentioned^as 20 years^as on 1372010 The said age has not been during^thecourse of The accusedis facingtrial for the last^more than fouryearsand is also still in custodysincethen

¶69

21 So the end ofjusticewould be^met in^{casethe sentence} of the

¶70

is reduced^to the^mlnlmum period^1e seven years insteadof ten years awarded bythe trial Court And I order However the^sentence of fine imposedunderSection376 of the IPC and sentence of and Sne imposedunder Sections 363 and 366 of

¶71

theIPC standafflrmed All the sentences shall however^run concuuently

¶72

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶73

ANITA 2014.11.26 15: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh

¶74

¶75

Criminal AppealNo144SB 2011 7

¶76

22 With the abovesaid modiOcation^ln the sentence the appeal

¶77

stands

¶78

23 A^copy of this be sent^to the trial Court for strict 1 JUDGE May c23 9 2013 SV

¶79

JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶80

ANITA 2014.11.26 15: 04 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh

Jatinder v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatinder v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Mittal @ Deepa Vs State of Punjab

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Pooja and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Raj Kumari Vs State of Punjab

Shivam @ Subahm Vs State of Punjab

Jeet Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.