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

Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2010. Case: Jarnail Singh Vs State of Haryana. Supreme Court (India)

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in 2 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2010
CounselFor Appellant: H.P.S. Ishar and Kailash Chand, Advs. and For Respondents: Meera Bhatia and Kamal Mohan Gupta, Advs.
JudgesP. Sathasivam and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.
IssueJuvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Sections 7A, 64, 68(1); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 161, 164, 313; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 120, 120B, 366, 376; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rules 12, 12(3), 19, 19(3)
Citation2013 (VII) AD (SC) 313, AIR 2013 SC 3467, 2013 (4) AJR 477, 2013 (83) AllCC 136, 2013 AllMR 2946 (Cri), 2013 CriLJ 3976, JT 2013 (9) SC 374, 2013 (2) NCC 431, 2013 (3) RCR 644 (Cri), 2013 (7) SCALE 764, 2013 (7) SCC 263, 2013 (2) UC 1430
Judgement DateJuly 01, 2013
CourtSupreme Court (India)

Judgment:

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.

  1. The factual position on which the prosecution version is founded, commences with the passing of information by Savitri Devi (the mother of the prosecutrix VW-PW6), to her husband Jagdish Chander-PW8, on 26.3.1993, at about 6 am. She informed her husband, that the prosecutrix VW-PW6 was missing from their residence. In this behalf it would be pertinent to mention, that on 25.3.1993 at about 10 pm, Jagdish Chander went to sleep in the "baithak" (drawing room) of their residence. Savitri Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix VW-PW6, along with the prosecutrix VW-PW6, and the other children (comprising of three sons, the prosecutrix VW-PW6 and one other daughter), went to sleep in the other rooms of the house. Savitri Devi, told her husband, that she suspected the Accused-Appellant Jarnail Singh, may be responsible for having taken away their daughter.

  2. Jagdish Chander-PW8, commenced to search for his daughter. During the course of the aforesaid search, the Accused-Appellant Jarnail Singh, who had his residence in the neighbourhood (of Jagdish Chander-PW8), was also found missing from his residence. The search for the prosecutrix VW-PW6 by her father, proved futile. It is therefore, that Jagdish Chander-PW8, made a complaint Exhibit PO on 27.3.1993 to the Sub-Inspector Incharge, Police Post, Jathlana. In his complaint, he described VW-PW6, as the elder of his two daughters. He gave out her age as about 16 years. He also alleged, that his daughter VW-PW6 had gone missing from their residence in the night intervening 25th and 26th March, 1993. He also alleged, that an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was missing from his house, which he assumed may have been taken away by his daughter VW-PW6, while leaving the house. In the complaint Exhibit PO, the needle of suspicion was pointed at the Accused-Appellant Jarnail Singh.

  3. After the registration of the complaint of Jagdish Chander-PW8, the prosecutrix VW-PW6 was recovered on 29.3.1983, from the custody of the Accused-Appellant Jarnail Singh, from the house of Shashi Bhan at Raipur in district Haridwar. The Accused-Appellant simultaneously came to be arrested, on 29.3.1993.

  4. The statement of the prosecutrix VW-PW6 was got recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before O.P. Verma, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagadhri on 6.4.1993. It is necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case to extract herein her short statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is being reproduced hereunder:

    Stated that on the night of 25.3.1993 at around 11 pm, I went to a street near my house to answer nature's call. Accused Jarnail Singh and his three accomplices were hiding there. When I got up after answering nature's call, then they caught hold of me and inhaled me something by cloth, due to which, I got unconscious. They took me to some unknown place in U.P. By putting me in some vehicle. There they took me to a room.

    Jarnail Singh, forcibly committed wrong (intercourse) with me. I slapped on his face, then he put cloth in my mouth. Therefore, I could not raise noise. Thereafter, everyone committed forcible intercourse with me, turn by turn. Huge blood came out of my vagina, and I felt a lot of pain. Thereafter, police caught us and handed over me to my parents.

  5. On completion of investigation, a challan was presented under Sections 366, 376 and 120 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, Jagadhri, whereupon, it was marked to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri framed charges on 20.12.1993. The Accused-Appellant pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.

  6. In order to bring home the charges levelled against the Accused-Appellant, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. The statement of the Accused-Appellant Jarnail Singh, was then recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the allegations levelled against him, and pleaded false implication. Despite opportunity having been afforded to him, the Accused-Appellant did not lead any evidence, in his defence.

  7. It is necessary to record, that on the culmination of the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri arrived at the conclusion, that the prosecution had been able to bring home the guilt of the Accused-Appellant beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, under Sections 366, 376(g) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Accused-Appellant Jarnail Singh was accordingly held guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri gave an opportunity of hearing to the Accused-Appellant Jarnail Singh on the question of sentence. Thereupon, for the offence under Section 376(g) of the Indian Penal Code the Accused-Appellant was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, he was also required to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- (in case of default in payment of fine, the Accused-Appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months). For the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, the Accused-Appellant was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and was required to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- (in case of default in payment of fine, the Accused-Appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months). And for the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, the Accused-Appellant was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, and was required to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- (in case of default in payment of fine, the Accused-Appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months). The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

  8. Dissatisfied with the judgment dated 14.3.1995, rendered by the trial Court, the Accused-Appellant Jarnail Singh preferred Criminal Appeal No. 247-SB of 1995 before the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as, the High Court). The High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Accused-Appellant on 4.11.2008. The judgment of conviction dated 14.3.1995 and the order of sentence dated 15.3.1995 (rendered by the trial Court i.e., the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri) were upheld.

  9. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial Court dated 14.3.1995 and that of the appellate Court dated 4.11.2008, the Accused-Appellant Jarnail Singh approached this Court. On 7.7.2010, this Court granted leave, in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 7836 of 2009, filed by the Accused-Appellant. Having traversed the aforesaid course, the instant criminal appeal has finally been placed before us, for adjudication.

  10. Before dealing with the issues canvassed at the hands of the learned Counsel for the Accused-Appellant Jarnail Singh, it is considered expedient to have a bird's eye view of the relevant prosecution witnesses. It is, therefore, that we shall endeavour to deal with the testimony of some of the prosecution witnesses hereunder:

    (i) Dr. Kanta Dhankar was produced by the prosecution as PW1. She had medico-legally examined the prosecutrix VW-PW6 on 29.3.1993 at 3 pm. According to her testimony, no blood or seminal stain was visible to the naked eye, during the course of examination of the prosecutrix VW-PW6. Pubic hairs were present. There was no visible injury on the external genitalia or vagina. The hymen of the prosecutrix VW-PW6 was found ruptured. Her vagina admitted 2/3 fingers easily. The clothes of the prosecutrix VW-PW6, a swab taken from her vagina and her pubic hair, were sent to the forensic science laboratory for examination, so as to determine...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
2 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