Division Bench dismissed rape appeal. Bench held that severe injury and victim's minor age distinguished this case from Om Parkash, rejecting plea for sentence reduction. Conviction affirmed.
judgment, conviction and sentence confirmed; appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.A. No.786-DB of 2008
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.A. No.786-DB of 2008
DATE OF DECISION: MAY 17, 2013
JASWINDER KUMAR
...APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
...RESPONDENT
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH.
PRESENT: MS.KIRAN BALA JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT. MR.KSHITIJ SHARMA, AAG, HARYANA.
M.JEYAPAUL, J.
Crl.A. No.786-DB of 2008
-2-
Society Bank.
Crl.A. No.786-DB of 2008
-3-
Sukh Ram. He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared rough site plan reflecting the scene of occurrence. He collected blood stained leaves of Eucalyptus tree and blood swabs from the floor of the bathroom where the rape was committed. He apprehended the accused and effected formal arrest near the bus stand of village Bassi. PW11 Dr.Sandeep Ranga examined the accused. He certified that the accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse. PW12 after completing the investigation laid final report as against the accused.
Crl.A. No.786-DB of 2008
-4-
accused and his young age. She would also submit that in a similar case, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has pleased to reduce the sentence to 7 years. Therefore, it is submitted that the accused-appellant may be acquitted of the charge on rape. In case the judgement of conviction is confirmed by this Court, the sentence may be substantially reduced in the light of the decision passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, it was lastly submitted.
in which a minor aged 9 years was committed rape by a full grown person aged 25 years. More shocking is the defence set-up through suggestions made to the prosecutrix aged 9 years that her mother forcibly inserted her fingers to tear the hymen in order to falsely implicate the accused on account of some property dispute. PW12 ASI Kulwant Singh had reached the scene of occurrence even before the parents and other villagers had left the scene of occurrence with the victim who was unconscious. PW12 would depose that it was he who made arrangement for the transportation of the victim to the hospital. But the shocking parents could not speak to the occurrence on account of the unexpected occurrence which completely dashed the future of the child. PW12 made an attempt to record the statement of the victim, but the victim was in an unconscious state. The second attempt made by him to obtain her statement also failed. Therefore, he had to obtain the statement from PW2 Sukh Ram, father of the prosecutrix.
Crl.A. No.786-DB of 2008
-5-
Crl.A. No.786-DB of 2008
-6-
Crl.A. No.786-DB of 2008
-7-
the class-teacher. The commission of offence of rape by the teacher surfaced only when the girl became pregnant. The teacher in the above case had not caused any injury to the victim. But in the instant case, the evidence of PW13 Dr.Inusha who examined the prosecutrix would go to show that the accused had made an attempt to strangulate the childprosecutrix and the injuries sustained by her in the neck was dangerous to her life. Infact the child-prosecutrix was in an unconscious state for quite some time. Further in the instant case, the child of 9 years before ever she attained puberty had been subjected to rape. Therefore, the case in hand cannot be factually compared with the decision in Om Parkash's case (supra). Even otherwise, we find that the accused had exhibited animal instinct without even caring for the tender age of the victim. Such an accused will have to be sternly dealt with and the maximum punishment can never be termed as disproportionate.
(M.JEYAPAUL) JUDGE
May 17, 2013 Gulati
( INDERJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against conviction and life sentence for rape of a 9-year-old child should be allowed, considering the minor age of accused and cited precedent.
Whether the accused's age and financial status are sufficient grounds to reduce the mandatory minimum sentence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC.
Whether the decision in Om Parkash vs. State of Haryana is factually comparable to the present case of severe injury and child victim.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Om Parkash vs. State of Haryana and anotherDistinguished¶51
(2013) 1 RCR (Criminal) 137
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jaswinder Kumar
State of Haryana
M Jeyapaul
Inderjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
