Your World of Legal Intelligence
 India | 1-800-335-6202

Criminal Appeal No. 2322 of 2010. Case: Deepak Gulati Vs State of Haryana. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited in 11 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 2322 of 2010
CounselFor Appellant: Amit Pawan, Adv. and For Respondents: Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv.
JudgesB.S. Chauhan and Dipak Misra, JJ.
IssueEvidence Act, 1872 - Sections 3, 90, 114A; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 90, 365, 366, 375, 376, 417; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Section 164
Citation2013 (2) ACR 2308, 2013 (3) ACR 2502, 2013 (VI) AD (SC) 233, AIR 2013 SC 2071, 2014 (1) AJR 265, 2013 (2) ALD 492 (Cri), 2013 (82) AllCC 345, 2013 (3) ALT(Cri) 339, 2013 CriLJ 2990, 2013 (2) Cri 311 (SC), 2013 (4) JCC 2680, JT 2013 (9) SC 105, 2013 (2) KLJ 810, 2013 (2) KLT 762, 2013 (1) NCC 834, 2013 (II) OLR 684, 2013 (3) RCR 96 (Cri), 2013 (7) S
Judgement DateMay 20, 2013
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

B.S. Chauhan, J.

  1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.1.2010, passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in CRA No. 960-SB of 1998 by way of which, the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal dated 13.11.1998 passed in Sessions Case No. 7 of 1995, by way of which the Appellant stood convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Indian Penal Code') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, alongwith a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 365 Indian Penal Code; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376 Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

  2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that:

    1. The Appellant and Geeta, prosecutrix, 19 years of age, student of 10+2 in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Karnal, had known each other for some time. Appellant had been meeting her in front of her school in an attempt to develop intimate relations with her. On 10.5.1995, the Appellant induced her to go with him to Kurukshetra, to get married and she agreed. En route Kurukshetra from Karnal, the Appellant took her to Kama lake (Karnal), and had sexual intercourse with her against her wishes, behind bushes. Thereafter, the Appellant took her to Kurukshetra, stayed with his relatives for 3-4 days and committed rape upon her.

    2. The prosecutrix was thrown out after 4 days by the Appellant. She then went to one of the hostels in Kurukshetra University, and stayed there for a few days. The warden of the hostel became suspicious and thus, questioned the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix thus narrated the incident to the warden, who informed her father. Meanwhile, the prosecutrix left the hostel and went to a temple, where she once again met the Appellant. Here, the Appellant convinced her to accompany him to Ambala to get married. When they reached the bus stand, they found her father present there alongwith the police. The Appellant was apprehended.

    3. Baldev Raj Soni, father of the prosecutrix, had lodged a complaint on 16.5.1995 under Sections 365 and 366 Indian Penal Code, which was later converted to one under Sections 365 and 376 Indian Penal Code.

    4. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 17.5.1995. Her statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Criminal Procedure) on 20.5.1995. After completing the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the Appellant, and in view of the material on record, charges under Sections 365 and 376 Indian Penal Code were framed against him by the Sessions Court, vide order dated 3.5.1996.

    5. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case and in view thereof, the Sessions Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 365/ 376 Indian Penal Code, vide judgment and order dated 13.11.1998 and awarded him the sentence for the said charges as has been referred to hereinabove.

    6. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 960-SB of 1998 (D & M) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which stood dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.11.1998.

    Hence, this appeal.

  3. None present for the Appellant. In view thereof, the Court has examined the material on record and gone through both the impugned judgments with the help of Shri Kamal Mohan Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

  4. The statement of the prosecutrix (PW. 7) was recorded under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure on 20.5.1995, wherein she has clearly stated that she had gone alongwith the Appellant to get married and for such purpose, she had also obtained a certificate from her school as proof of her age. On the said date i.e. 10.5.1995, as the Appellant had been unable to reach the pre-decided place, the prosecutrix had telephoned him on the number provided by him. She has further deposed that the Appellant had asked her to have a physical relationship with him, but that she had not agreed to do so before marriage. When they reached Kurukshetra and stayed with his relatives there, the Appellant had sexual intercourse with her for 3 days. On the 4th day, she was thrown out of the house by the Appellant and thus, she had gone to the Girls Hostel in Kurukshetra University, where she had stayed under the pretext of getting admitted to the university. However, the university personnel became suspicious, and after making enquiries from her, they telephoned her house. She then left the university and had gone to the Birla Mandir at Kurukshetra...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
11 cases

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT