Sangeet Kumar Nayak Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1072326
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-31-2013
AppellantSangeet Kumar Nayak
RespondentState of Punjab
Excerpt:
c.r.a.no.1228-sb of 2001 (o&m) -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh c.r.a.no.1228-sb of 2001 (o&m) date of decision :31. 01.2013 sangeet kumar nayak .....appellant versus state of punjab .....respondent coram : hon'ble mr.justice ajay tewari *** present : mr.m.s.sidhu, advocate for the appellant. mr.k.s.pannu, d.a.g., punjab. *** 1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”2. to be referred to the reporters or not?.”3. whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?. ajay tewari, j. (oral) this appeal has been filed against the conviction of the appellant under section 376 ipc read with section 511 ipc for attempting the rape of 8 years old prosecutrix and sentencing him to five years imprison. the case set up against the appellant was that he purchased a apple from the complainant (father of the prosecutrix) and told him that he was not carrying cash with him, but he could send his daughter with him to the adjoining factory where the appellant was appointed in the canteen and c.r.a.no.1228-sb of 2001 (o&m) -2- he would pay the money to her. after about half an hour, the prosecutrix came back weeping and told the complainant and her mother that the appellant tried to kiss her and also removed her cloths and his own and attempted to rape her but when she started crying loudly he ran away. apart from the evidence of the prosecution, there was an independent witness i.e.pw5 ram bahadur who was working as chowkidar in the said factory also supported the version that on 02.10.1999 the appellant had come into the factory premises with a 7-8 years old girl who came out weeping after half an hour and when he asked her what went wrong she stated that she would only tell her parents about the incident. with regard to the age of the prosecutrix, not only the ossification test was conducted but the teacher in the school where she studied had also produced to prove that she was less than 8 years of age on the date of occurrence. the cloths of the prosecutrix were sent for chemical analysis and as per the report semen were found on the under-garment. the plea of the appellant was only of false implication but he had no reason as to why the complainant would falsely implicate him. it was in these circumstances that the appellant was convicted. the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the present is not a case of section 376 ipc but at best a case of section 354 ipc for which a maximum imprisonment of two years is prescribed while the appellant has already undergone 2 years and 3 months. i am afraid, it is not possible for me to agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. the presence of semen on the under-garment of the prosecutrix clearly shows that it was a case far beyond c.r.a.no.1228-sb of 2001 (o&m) -3- the definition of outraging the modesty. the chronology of events reveal that in case the minot child had not started weeping loudly the appellant would have completed the heinous offence of rape. in the circumstances, no fault can be found with either of the conviction or the sentence of the appellant. petition is dismissed. the accused-appellant is on bail. he shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence originally imposed on him. since the main case has been decided, the pending criminal miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. ( ajay tewari ) january 31, 2013 judge ashish
Judgment:

C.R.A.No.1228-SB of 2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.A.No.1228-SB of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision :

31. 01.2013 Sangeet Kumar Nayak .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr.K.S.Pannu, D.A.G., Punjab.

*** 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.”

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?.”

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.

AJAY TEWARI, J.

(Oral) This appeal has been filed against the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC read with Section 511 IPC for attempting the rape of 8 years old prosecutrix and sentencing him to five years imprison.

The case set up against the appellant was that he purchased a apple from the complainant (father of the prosecutrix) and told him that he was not carrying cash with him, but he could send his daughter with him to the adjoining factory where the appellant was appointed in the canteen and C.R.A.No.1228-SB of 2001 (O&M) -2- he would pay the money to her.

After about half an hour, the prosecutrix came back weeping and told the complainant and her mother that the appellant tried to kiss her and also removed her cloths and his own and attempted to rape her but when she started crying loudly he ran away.

Apart from the evidence of the prosecution, there was an independent witness i.e.PW5 Ram Bahadur who was working as chowkidar in the said factory also supported the version that on 02.10.1999 the appellant had come into the factory premises with a 7-8 years old girl who came out weeping after half an hour and when he asked her what went wrong she stated that she would only tell her parents about the incident.

With regard to the age of the prosecutrix, not only the ossification test was conducted but the teacher in the school where she studied had also produced to prove that she was less than 8 years of age on the date of occurrence.

The cloths of the prosecutrix were sent for chemical analysis and as per the report Semen were found on the under-garment.

The plea of the appellant was only of false implication but he had no reason as to why the complainant would falsely implicate him.

It was in these circumstances that the appellant was convicted.

The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the present is not a case of Section 376 IPC but at best a case of Section 354 IPC for which a maximum imprisonment of two years is prescribed while the appellant has already undergone 2 years and 3 months.

I am afraid, it is not possible for me to agree with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant.

The presence of Semen on the under-garment of the prosecutrix clearly shows that it was a case far beyond C.R.A.No.1228-SB of 2001 (O&M) -3- the definition of outraging the modesty.

The chronology of events reveal that in case the minot child had not started weeping loudly the appellant would have completed the heinous offence of rape.

In the circumstances, no fault can be found with either of the conviction or the sentence of the appellant.

Petition is dismissed.

The accused-appellant is on bail.

He shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence originally imposed on him.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending criminal miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.

( AJAY TEWARI ) January 31, 2013 JUDGE ashish