Offences against Human Body

June 23, 2023

This article has been written by Ms. TANYA, a student of BA.LLB from

GITARATTAN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL, ROHINI. The

Author is a 3rd year Law student.

TITLE: OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN BODY

Introduction

Offences against the human body refer to a broad category of crimes that involve

physically harming or injuring another person. These types of crimes can range

from relatively minor offenses, such as simple assault or battery, to more serious

crimes, such as murder or manslaughter.

The most common types of offenses against the human body include assault,

battery, and homicide. Assault refers to an act that intentionally causes another

person to fear that they will be physically harmed, while battery involves actually

making physical contact with another person in a harmful or offensive manner.

Homicide refers to the killing of another person and can be classified as either

murder or manslaughter, depending on the circumstances surrounding the death.

Other types of offenses against the human body include sexual assault, domestic

violence, and child abuse. These crimes involve physical harm or injury that is

specifically directed at vulnerable populations, such as women, children, and the

elderly.

Offences against the human body are taken very seriously by law enforcement and

can result in significant legal consequences for those who are found guilty.

Penalties can include fines, imprisonment, and in some cases, even the death

penalty.

DETAILS OF THE CONCEPT

Offences against the human body can refer to a wide range of crimes that involve

harm, injury or violence against another person. These offences can vary in

severity, and can be prosecuted as either a misdemeanour or a felony depending on

the circumstances of the crime. Here are some of the most common offences

against the human body:

Assault: Assault is the act of intentionally causing fear or apprehension of harm in

another person. This can include threatening to harm someone, making them

believe they will be physically harmed, or physically touching them in a way that

they believe will cause harm.

Battery: Battery is the intentional, harmful or offensive touching of another person.

This can include hitting, punching, slapping, or any other physical contact that is

intended to cause harm.

Aggravated Assault/Battery: Aggravated assault/battery involves a more serious

form of assault or battery, where the perpetrator uses a deadly weapon, causes

serious bodily injury, or acts with the intent to commit a more serious crime, such

as rape or robbery.

Homicide: Homicide is the killing of one person by another. This can be classified

as murder, manslaughter, or justifiable homicide depending on the circumstances.

Sexual assault: Sexual assault is any unwanted sexual contact, including rape,

sexual battery, and other forms of sexual violence.

Child abuse: Child abuse includes physical, sexual, or emotional abuse or neglect

of a child.

Domestic violence: Domestic violence is violence or abuse committed against a

spouse, partner, or family member.

Stalking: Stalking involves repeatedly harassing, threatening, or following another

person in a way that causes them to fear for their safety.

These offences are taken very seriously by law enforcement and can carry

significant penalties upon conviction, including imprisonment and fines. It is

important to seek legal counsel if you have been accused of any of these crimes or

if you are a victim of any of these offences.

Conclusion

Offences against the human body are serious crimes that involve physical harm or

injury to another person. These offenses can range from relatively minor assaults

to severe forms of violence such as murder. The consequences of these crimes can

be devastating and long-lasting for the victims and their families.

It is important for individuals to understand that committing an offense against

another person’s body is a serious violation of their human rights. The legal system

has provisions in place to ensure that such offenses are punished accordingly,

depending on the severity of the crime.

Victims of these crimes often suffer physical, emotional, and psychological trauma

that can impact their lives in significant ways. It is important for society to support

victims and to work towards preventing such offenses from occurring in the first

place through education, advocacy, and the promotion of non-violent conflict

resolution.

In conclusion, offenses against the human body are serious crimes that have far-

reaching consequences. Society must take a firm stance against such offenses and

work towards preventing them from occurring through various means.

Additionally, those who commit these crimes must be held accountable for their

actions and punished accordingly to ensure justice for the victims.

CASELAWS

State vs. (1) Harpreet Singh on 22 August, 2009

Author: Sh. S.K. Saravia

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.K. SARVARIA

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01/SOUTH

PATIALA HOUSE COURT

SESSIONS CASE NO. 10/2004

State Vs. (1) Harpreet Singh

S/o Amrik Singh

R/o VPO Badri Kalan

Distt. Amritsar,

Punjab.

(2) Satyendra Singh

S/o Parmanand

R/o VPO Kisranti

PS Sampla Distt.

Rohtak, Haryana.

(3) Kuldeep Singh

S/o Mool Singh

R/o VPO Lunwa

PS Nawa Distt. Nagaur

Rajasthan.

(4) Munesh Kumar

S/o Parmal Singh

R/o Vill. Abdullapur

Mewla

PO Amin Nagar, Sarai

District Baghpat, U.P.

FIR No. 247/03

Police Station Chanakya Puri

Under Section 366/394/376 IPC

Date of Judgment 17/08/09

Date of order on sentence 22/08/09

ORDER ON SENTENCE

By my judgment dated 17/08/09, the accused Harpreet

and Satinder were convicted for the offences under Section 376

(2) (g) IPC and all the four accused were convicted of the

charges for the offences under Sections 394/366/34 IPC and the

two accused Kuldeep and Munesh were acquitted of the said

Charge under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC.

Ld. Addl PP has vehemently argued that the

prosecutrix a minor girl, was kidnapped and gang raped so there

is no ground for leniency against convicted persons. It is argued

that accused/convicted persons have committed heinous offence

u/S 394 IPC which is also punishable upto life imprisonment and

other serious offence committed by all four accused persons is

the offence u/S 366 IPC. So, deterrent punishment should be

awarded to the accused persons.

The arguments of Sh. Ranbir Sharma, learned

Counsel for the accused Harpreet and Satinder are that accused

Satinder has minor daughter aged 11 years studying in 5th class

and has a wife who is uneducated. Accused Satinder is sole

bread earner of his family and has to support other family

members. He has clean antecedents and has served the army

for the last 7 years. About Harpreet Singh it is argued that he

is unmarried has an aged mother to support. He is in custody for

the last about 6 years and has clean antecedents. So lenient

view be taken against him. It is argued that both accused

Harpreet and Satinder should be sentenced to the period of

imprisonment already undergone by them during investigation

and trial of the case. To supplement the oral arguments, learned

counsel for the accused Harpeet and Satinder has also filed

application for taking lenient view against these two accused

persons. The arguments of Sh. Maninder Singh, Advocate

learned Counsel for the accused Munesh is that he is in custody

for the last 6 years and has clean antecedents. He has a wife

and two children to support. He is held guilty for committing

robbery from the friend of prosecutrix and not from the

prosecutrix. He was only accomplice of co-accused Harpreet. It

is argued that there is no injury on the person of prosecution

witness Ashish, the friend of the prosecutrix and he as per

prosecution case was slapped by co-accused Harpreet, so

lenient view may be taken against the accused Munesh. It is

argued that it is not that the offence u/S 366 IPC is punishable

with minimum imprisonment of 10 years and same is the

situation of Section 394 IPC. So, court should exercise its

discretion and take lenient view against accused Munesh. He

has relied upon some authorities referred in subsequent part of

this order. The arguments of Sh. Vikas Arora, Advocate learned

Counsel for accused Kuldeep is that the accused Kuldeep is 35

years old. He has a son aged 8 years and 5 brothers and sisters

also. His father is aged about 65 years and he has to maintain

his family. Due to his continuous detention in jail his family

is facing hardship. It is argued that accused Kuldeep was never

subjected to any departmental enquiry. He was never involved

in any crime. He is the sole bread earner of his family and has

passed 12th class, so he deserves lenient view and if the jail

rules regarding remission of sentence on account of good

conduct etc. are taken into account, he is entitled to the

imprisonment for the period of 8 years and can be treated as

undergone as per jail rules. Therefore, it is requested that

accused Kuldeep should be sentenced to imprisonment already

undergone by him during investigation and trial court of the

case. Reliance is placed on same authorities relied upon by

learned Counsel for the accused Munesh. Accused Kuldeep and

accused Satinder have made

oral submissions for taking lenient view against them by stating

that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in this

case.

I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and

learned Counsel for the accused persons and accused Kuldeep

and Satinder in person and have gone through the record of the

case and the applications for lenient view filed on behalf of the

accused Harpreet and accused Satinder and I have also gone

through the relevant provisions of law carefully.

First I take up the arguments of learned counsel for

convict Harpreet and Satender for the offence of gang rape for

which they are convicted under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC. This

offence is punishable with minimum imprisonment of 10 years

which may extend to life imprisonment. However, the sentence

of imprisonment can be reduced from minimum of 10 years for

adequate and special reasons. The convict guilty for such an

offence is also liable to fine.

Before adverting into the facts to decide the

imprisonment to award against convict Harpreet and Satender

for the said offence of gang rape it would be appropriate to have

a look at some of the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme

Court with regard to sex crimes against women.

In State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (SC) 1996(1)

R.C.R.(Criminal) 533 : 1996 A.I.R. (SC) 1393 : 1996 Cri.L.J.

1728 it was held:

“21. Of late, crime against women in

general and rape in particular is on the

increase. It is an irony that while we are

celebrating women’s rights in all spheres,

we show little or no concern for her

honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude

of indifference of the society towards the

violation of human dignity of the victims of

sex crimes. We must remember that a

rapist not only violates the victim’s privacy

and personal integrity, but inevitably

causes serious psychological as well as

physical harm in the process. Rape is not

merely a physical assault – it is often

destructive of the whole personality of the

victim. A murder destroys the physical

body of his victim, a rapist degrades the

very soul of the helpless female. The

Courts, therefore, shoulder a great

responsibility while trying an accused on

charges of rape. They must deal with such

cases with utmost sensitivity.

………………….”

It was held in In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Munna

Choubey, (SC) 2005(2) S.C.C. 710 : 2005 A.I.R. (SC) 682 :

2005(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 831 :: 2005 Cri.L.J. 913 (S.C) as

follows:-

“7. The physical scar may heal up, but the

mental scar will always remain. When a

woman is ravished, what is inflicted is not

merely physical injury but the deep sense

of some deathless shame.”

It was further held as follows:

“In Mahesh v. State of M.P.

(1987)2 SCR 710), this Court while

refusing to reduce the death sentence

observed thus :

“It will be a mockery of justice to

permit the accused to escape the extreme

penalty of law when faced with such

evidence and such cruel acts. To give the

lesser punishment for the accused would

be to render the justicing system of the

country suspect. The common man will

lose faith in courts. In such cases, he

understands and appreciates the language

of deterrence more than the reformative

jargon.”

Therefore, undue sympathy to impose

inadequate sentence would do more harm

to the justice system to undermine the

public confidence in the efficacy of law and

society could no long endure under such

serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of

every court to award proper sentence

having regard to the nature of the offence

and the manner in which it was executed

or committed etc. This position was

illuminatingly stated by this Court in

Sevaka Perumal etc. v. State of Tamil

Naidu, 1991(2) RCR(Crl.) 427 (SC) : (AIR

1991 SC 1463).

The criminal law adheres in general to

the principle of proportionality in

prescribing liability according to the

culpability of each kind of criminal conduct.

It ordinarily allows some significant

discretion to the Judge in arriving at a

sentence in each case, presumably to

permit sentences that reflect more subtle

considerations of culpability that are raised

by the special facts of each case. Judges

in essence affirm that punishment ought

always to fit the crime; yet in practice

sentences are determined largely by other

considerations. Sometimes it is the

correctional needs of the perpetrator that

are offered to justify a sentence.

Sometimes the desirability of keeping him

out of circulation, and sometimes even the

tragic results of his crime. Inevitably these

considerations cause a departure from just

desert as the basis of punishment and

create cases of apparent injustice that are

serious and widespread.

Proportion between crime and

punishment is a goal respected in

principle, and in spite of errant notions, it

remains a strong influence in the

determination of sentences. The practice

of punishing all serious crimes with equal

severity is now unknown in civilized

societies, but such a radical departure

from the principle of proportionality has

disappeared from the law only in recent

times. Even now for a single grave

infraction drastic sentences are imposed.

Anything less than a penalty of greatest

severity for any serious crime is thought

then to be a measure of toleration that is

unwarranted and unwise. But in fact, quite

apart from those considerations that make

punishment unjustifiable when it is out of

proportion to the crime, uniformly

disproportionate punishment has some

very undesirable practical consequences.”

(See also State of M.P. v. Basodi, (SC) 2009(2)

R.C.R.(Criminal) 842 : 2009(3) R.A.J. 345; State of Rajasthan

Gajendra Singh , (SC) 2008(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 943 :

2008(4) R.A.J. 680 : 2008(4) AICLR 216 : 2008(11) Scale

9;State of Punjab v. Rakesh Kumar, (SC) 2008(4)

R.C.R.(Criminal) 142 : 2008 A.I.R. (SC) 1365 : 2009 Cri.L.J.

396 )

In view of the above authorities emerging from Hon’ble

Supreme Court, it is clear that the sentence in rape cases should

be deterrent and there should not be any misplaced sypmathy

with the convict on the question of sentence.

As regards the question whether the facts like convicts

are first offenders or are in custody for the last about six years

and are sole bread earners of their families and have to

maintain their children and wife and aged parents, the same, in

my view, do not fall within proviso which deals with the grant of

lessor punishment to the convict on account of adequate and

sufficient reasons. In Munna Chaubay’s case (supra) the Hon’ble

High Court has made the following other observations:

“18. In both sub-sections (1) and (2) of

Section 376 minimum sentences are

prescribed.

Both in cases of sub-sections (1) and

(2) the Court has the discretion to impose

a sentence of imprisonment less than the

prescribed minimum for ‘adequate and

special reasons’. If the Court does not

mention such reasons in the judgment

there is no scope for awarding a sentence

lesser than the prescribed minimum.

In order to exercise the discretion of

reducing the sentence the statutory

requirement is that the Court has to record

“adequate and special reasons” in the

judgment and not fanciful reasons which

would permit the Court to impose a

sentence less than the prescribed

minimum. The reason has not only to be

adequate but also special. What is

adequate and special would depend upon

several factors and no strait-jacket formula

can be indicated. What is applicable to trial

Courts regarding recording reasons for a

departure from minimum sentence is

equally applicable to the High Court. The

only reason indicated by the High Court is

that the accused belonged to rural areas.

The same can by no stretch of imagination

be considered either adequate or special.

The requirement in law is cumulative.”

In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (SC) 2008(5)

S.C.C. 139 : 2008(3) Scale 181 : 2008(3) SCR 490 : 2008(2)

SCC(Cri) 541 the sentence of life imprisonment awarded by

courts below was not reduced by Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was

held in a gang rape case as follows:

“11. In this case the courts below have

awarded the maximum penalty against the

three accused being the life sentence .

The only plea that was raised before us

was that the appellant Ramesh comes

from the poor background and that his old

parents will be deprived of his company.

There is no material placed before the

Trial and the Appellate Court as well as

before us in support of his poverty. At any

rate we can take the notice of the fact that

the father of the appellant has been the

Sarpanch for the last 20 years. Again

there would be no question of taking a

lenient view particularly because of the

daring dastardly act on the part of the

accused persons in which the appellant

took active part inasmuch as out of the six

accused persons, he was one of the three

accused who had committed rape on the

lady. “

Therefore, none of the grounds pleaded before me on

behalf of the convicts Satender and Harpreet fall within adequate

and special reasons to attract lessor than the prescribed

minimum imprisonment. Rather the fact that the convict

Satender and Harpreet were working in President’s Body Guard

department of President’s House and were at the relevant time

given the onerous duty of the security of the President of India,

the Executive Head of the country, still they committed such

heinous offence while posted at such a sensitive place call for

exemplary and deterrent punishment to be imposed against

them.

As regards the offence under Section 394 IPC against

convict Satender and Harpreet they are guilty of committing

robbery with voluntarily causing hurt with the prosecutrix after

commission of rape and also similar robbery by voluntarily

causing hurt to the friend of the prosecutrix, prosecution witness

Ashish. The stolen amount was recovered from convict

Satender. It is true since convict Satender is convicted for

robbery with voluntarily causing hurt under Section 394 IPC he

cannot be guilty of offence under Section 411 IPC but since the

amount of robbery was also recovered from convict Satender by

the police it aggrevates the matter and call for the deterrent and

exempllory punishment against them for the offence under

Section 394 IPC also.

As regards the convict Kuldeep and Munesh is

concerned, the learned counsel for these convicts have relied

upon the following authorities:

1) State of Rajasthan Vs Ram Narain and others (

1996) 8 SCC 64

2) Gurmej Singh Vs State of Punjab 1995 Supp (2)

SCC 365

3) State of Rajasthan Vs Sukhpal Singh and others

(1983) 1 SCC 393

4) Devkaran and others Vs State of Rajasthan (2005)

10 SCC 255

5) State of Kerala Vs Balakrishnan 1998 SCC ( Cri)

571

6) Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab (1998) 8 SCC 629

In Jarnail Singh’s case (supra) the accused was 17

years old so it does not apply to the present case. Balakrishnan’s

case (supra) deals with offence under section 304 (II) or section

323 IPC and none of these offenences is relevant for the present

case. Devkaran’ s case (supra) deals with sections

302/34,323/34 and section 326 IPC and not with section 366,

section 394 IPC so this case also does not help to the convicts

Kuldeep and Munesh. Sukhpal Singh’s case (supra) deals with

bank dacoity and not with section 366 IPC and 394 IPC. So this

case also is of no help to the said two convicts. Gurmej Singh’s

case (supra) deals with section 393 IPC and section 452 IPC

and section 3 of TADA while the convict Kuldeep and Munesh

were convicted under section 394 and 366. Therefore, Gurmej

Singh’s case is also not of help to these convicts.

In Ramnarain’s case (supra) the offence of kidnapping

for forced sexual intercourse and rape under section 376 IPC

and wrongful confinement under section 342 IPC were

committed on 14.8.83. But the provisions of section 376 IPC

were made strangent with minimum deterrent punishments

prescribed both for sub section (1) and (2) of section 376 IPC by

amendments made by Legislature effective from 25.12.1993.

Therefore, Ram Narain’s case deals with pre amendment of

punishment of rape and its effect is diluted after 25.12.83 when

the new definition and deterrent punishment was provided in it.

However,other distinguishable feature is that convicts are posted

in President’sBody Guard and were supposed to be indiscipline.

The fact that a person posted in such sensitive place has

committed such offence aggravates the circumstance for him on

the question of punishment. Therefore, Ram Narain’s case is

also of no help to the convicts Kuldeep and Munesh. Hurt is

defined in Section 319 IPC and certainly covers slapping.

Section 394 IPC foist joint liability on all four convicts irrespective

of the fact that only one convict has slapped victim. However,

convict Kuldeep and Munesh are guilty of one robbery while

convict Satinder and Harpreet of two robberies, referred in the

judgment dated 17/08/09.

In view of the above both convicts Harpreet and

Satender are awarded Life Imprisonment for the offence of gang

ape under section 376 (2) (g) IPC. In addition they are also

directed to pay fine of Rs 5000/- each. In default of payment of

fine defaulting convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for

nine months.

For the offence under Section 394 IPC convicts

Harpreet and Satender are awarded Life Imprisonment. In

addition they are also directed to pay fine of Rs 2000/- each. In

default of payment of fine defaulting convict shall undergo

Simple Imprisonment for four months.

For the offence under Section 366 IPC both convicts

Harpreet and Satender are awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for

ten years each. In addition , they are also liable to pay fine of Rs.

2000/- each. In default of payment fine defaulting convict to

undergo Simple Imprisonment for four months.

As convicts Kuldeep and Munesh are guilty of one

robbery under Section 394 IPC that two with the friend of the

prosecutrix namely Ashish, they are sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of ten years each. In addition

they shall also pay fine of Rs 5000/- each. In default of payment

of fine defaulting convict to undergo Simple Imprisonment for

nine months. For the offence under Section 366 IPC, these

convicts Kuldeep and Munesh are sentenced to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years each. In addition they are

directed to pay fine of Rs 2000/- each. In default of payment of

fine defaulting convict shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for

four months.

All the substantive sentences of imprisonment against

convicts shall run concurrently. The period of detention already

undergone by them during investigation and trial shall be set off

against the term of imprisonment imposed against them by this

order, as provided under section 428 Cr.P.C.

Judgment and order on sentence be sent to

server(www.delhidistrict courts. nic.in). Copy of the judgment

and order on sentence be supplied to convicts/accused free of

cost.

File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open ( S.K. SARVARIA )

Court on 22.08.09 Additional Sessions Judge-

01/South Patiala House Court

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.K. SARVARIA

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01/SOUTH

PATIALA HOUSE COURT

SESSIONS CASE NO. 247/03

State Vs. (1) Harpreet Singh

S/o Amrik Singh

R/o VPO Badri Kalan

Distt. Amritsar, Punjab.

(2) Satyender Singh

S/o Parmanand

R/o VPO Kisranti

PS Sampla Distt. Rohtak,

Haryana.

(3) Kuldeep Singh

S/o VPO Lunwa

PS Nawa Distt. Nagaur

Rajasthan.

(4) Munesh Kumar

S/o Parmal Singh

R/o Vill. Abdullapur Mewla

PO Amin Nagar, Sarai

District Baghpat, U.P.

FIR No. 247/03

Police Station Chanakya Puri

Under Section 366/394/376 IPC

Date of Institution 20/01/04

Date when arguments

were heard 24/07/09

Date of Judgment 17/08/09

JUDGMENT

The SHO of Police Station Chanakya Puri has challaned the accused persons to face trial for the offences under Sections 366/394/376(2)/411/34 IPC. Keeping in view the provisions of section 228 (A) IPC and the dicta of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v/s Puttraj (2004 (1) SCC 475) and Om Prakash vs Stat of Uttar Pradesh 2006 Cri.L.J 2913 the name of prosecutrix is being not given in the judgment. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in compliance of provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C supplied the copies of the documents to the accused persons and committed the case to the Court of Sessions as provided under section 209 Cr.P.C. BRIEF FACTS:-

The prosecution case in brief is that on 6.10.2003, SI Satbir Singh alongwith police staff was on patrolling duty in connection with some law and order arrangement in Buddha Jayanti Park. One Ashish Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Madan Lal Sharma met him in Budha Jayanti Park. He informed SI Satbir Singh that four persons, who were wearing military dress had forcibly taken his girl friend/prosecutrix inside the bushes of the park. He also stated that one of these four persons was a Sardar and he had slapped him and had also snatched Rs. 100/- from him. On this information, SI Satbir Singh along with staff and Ashish Kumar Sharma went inside the deep bushed forest/in the park in search of the prosecutrix and accused persons. During the search, the prosecutrix came weeping towards the police party. She was identified by Ashish Kumar Sharma as his girl friend. Inspector Laxmi, CAW Cell, New Delhi also reached the spot after getting the information.

Enquiries were made from her by SI Satbir Singh on the spot about the incident and statement of the prosecutrix was recorded in which she has stated, in short, that she was the student of 1st year in Jesus and Merry College. On that day i.e 6.10.2003, she along with her boy friend Ashish came to Budha Jayanti Park at about 11.00 a.m and they were strolling in the park where four persons wearing military dress met them. One Sardar and another person, his associate, who was stout built caught hold of Ashish Kumar and he was taken away. Remaining two persons were tall and one of them was fatty and another was thin built and clean shaved. One of them gagged her mouth and fatty body person caught hold of her from her hand and she was forcibly taken in the forest. She tried to save herself from them but she could not raise hue and cry as her mouth was gagged. It had taken 10 minutes to reach near a military van. In the meantime, that Sardar and his associate reached near the van. Sardar and fatty built persons pulled her in the backside of the vehicle and the remaining two associates sat on the front side of the van. One of those four persons drove the vehicle for about 5 minutes. Thereafter, the vehicle was stopped and she was pulled down from the vehicle. There were heavy bushes and two of the four persons had taken her in the bushes. Her mouth was gagged. The fatty built person had committed rape on her, forcibly, against her will. Thereafter, Sardar also forcibly raped her against her will and the first person continued to gag her mouth when Sardar was committing rape on her. Sardar also slapped her and removed Rs. 120/- from her purse. After committing rape on her, both of them went away from there. She was returning back and was searching for her friend Ashish, when she met the police party and narrated the same incident to them.

Thereafter, the police party along with the complainant and Ashish searched for the accused persons in the forest and reached near the stable. The same Sardar was found sitting in the room, who was identified by Ashish Kumar and the prosecutrix. On enquiry, said Sardar disclosed his name as Harpreet Singh s/o Sardar Amrik Singh r/o Vill. & PO Badri Kalan, District Amritsar, Punjab and he further disclosed the name of the rapist accomplice as Satender. He also gave the names of remaining two accomplices, who had driven the van as Manish and Kuldeep. The said Sardar further told that his three accomplices were posted in President’s Body Guard (PBG). On the statement of prosecutrix , FIR No.247 dated 6.10.2003, under Sections 392/376/34 IPC was registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri and investigation was taken up by Woman Inspector Laxmi.

On 6.10.2003, site plan of the spot, the place in the forest, from, where prosecutrix was kidnapped was prepared by Investigating Officer on the pointing out of Ashish Kumar. Accused Harpreet Singh was arrested from the PBG Club office, on identification of Ashish and prosecutrix on 6.10.2003. Accused Harpreet Singh was interrogated and gave disclosure statement admitting his guilt. The medical examination of Harpreet was got conducted at RML hospital. The doctor preserved blood sample, pubic hair, underwear and semen samples of the accused at the time of medical examination.

During investigation on enquiries made from the prosecutrix on the day of incident i.e 6.10.2003, she further stated that one plastic toy and one button had fallen at the spot when accused Harpreet Singh had snatched Rs. 120/- from her. She also stated that her handkerchief was used by accused Harpreet Singh to clean his penis. These articles, handkerchief, toy and button were found lying at the place of occurrence on 8.10.2003. The crime team was summoned at the spot and had inspected the scene of crime. On examination of handkerchief, blood and semen stains as well as some pubic hair were noticed. These were taken into possession in two separate parcels which were sealed with the seal of SS. On 6.10.2003, prosecutrix was taken to Lady Harding Medical College for medical examination by woman Inspector Laxmi and her medical examination was got conducted. As per medical examination doctor observed, “tear at the introitus is suggestive opinion of intercourse today, though there is no external evidence of assault. Rape to be confirmed after investigation of the samples”. During medical examination, vaginal swab, vaginal smear, blood sample, pubic hair, underwear (panty) of prosecutrix were preserved by the doctor, who conducted medical examination. These articles were sealed by the Gynecologist and sealed parcel was taken into possession vide seizure memo. On 6.10.2003, Investigating Officer had taken into possession clothes i.e Kurta, Salwar and chunni of the prosecutrix. On examination of clothes, blood and semen stains were noticed on the salwar and kurta. These clothes were sealed in a parcel with the seal of SS and were taken into police possession.

On 7.10.2003, accused Harpreet Singh was further interrogated and gave disclosure statement. Thereafter, he got recovered his uniform and underwear which he was wearing at the time of incident. Police remand for one day was obtained from the court. On 8.10.2003 his uniform which he was wearing at the time of incident was recovered from the bushes near the stable at his instance but his underwear could not be recovered.

On 7.10.2003 accused Satender Singh s/o Parma Nand was arrested and his personal search was taken and cash of Rs. 220/- was recovered from his personal search vide personal search memo prepared by the Investigating Officer . This accused also gave disclosure statement and got recovered his clothes i.e uniform etc. which were taken into police possession and sealed. The medical examination of accused Satender was got conducted at RML hospital. During the medical examination, blood sample, semen sample, pubic hair and underwear of the accused were preserved by the doctor which were sealed by CMO, RML hospital and thereafter taken into police possession.

On 7.10.2003 accused Manish and Kuldeep Singh were also arrested by the Investigating Officer on the pointing out of accused Harpreet Singh. Their personal searches were conducted . Their disclosure statements were also recorded. Their uniforms were sealed in separate parcels and sealed with the seal of SS and sealed parcels were taken into possession. The accused persons were directed to be kept in muffled face and test identification proceedings (TIP) of the accused persons were got conducted by ld. Metropolitan Magistrate Ms. Barkha Gupta in Tihar Jail. The prosecutrix correctly identified the accused persons in TIP proceedings.

On 20.10.2003 the exhibits of the case were sent to FSL Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for examination. On 20.10.2003, draftsman Inspector Devender Singh was requisitioned on the spot and on the pointing out of SI Satbir Singh, the draftsman took measurements and notes and prepared scaled site plan. On 12.11.2003, an application was moved in the court to obtain blood samples of accused Harpreet Singh and Satender Singh. The blood samples were required for further scientific examination. Both the accused persons refused to give their blood samples before the Link Metropolitan Magistrate Sh. S.K Aggarwal. The refusal proceedings of accused persons were recorded by ld. Metropolitan Magistrate . On 14.11.2003, record relating to the posting of all four accused persons in Presidents Body Guard (PBG) was collected from the concerned unit through Major Rajeev Bansal. On 12.11.2003 subsequent opinion on the MLC relating to medical examination of prosecutrix was obtained and the doctor opined, “Microscopic examination semen was detected on slide and vaginal smear. Hence rape is confirmed”.

During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C, obtained report of CFSL and of medical examination of prosecutrix and accused persons and on completion of investigation prepared the challan under section 173 Cr.P.C against the accused persons and filed it in the court through SHO, Police Station Chanakya Puri, as referred before.

CHARGES AND PLEAS OF ACCUSED PERSONS:

The charges under Sections 366/34 and 376 (ii) (g) IPC were framed against all the accused persons. Separate charge under section 397 IPC r/w section 394/34 IPC was framed against accused Harpreet and accused Munesh Kumar. One separate charge under Section 392 read with Section 394/34 IPC was framed against accused Harpreet and accused Munesh Kumar. One separate charge under section 411 IPC was framed against accused Satyender Singh. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the said charges framed on 02/04/2004. They claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:

In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 25 witnesses in all. PW1 is Dr. Monika Hooda, Gynecologist Department, Lady Harding Hospital, New Delhi. She has medically examined the prosecutrix and has stated in brief that the prosecutrix told her that she went to Budha Garden around 10.00 am with her male friend Ashish and at 11.00 am, four men in military dress caught hold of them and slapped the boy and took the girl away in bushes. Then two men went away without assaulting her. The other two men raped her in turn. They did not injure her externally. PW1 has proved the MLC of prosecutrix as Ex.PW1/A and has stated that on 22.11.2003 the investigating agency approached her for her opinion regarding rape and after examining the FSL report and MLC, she confirmed rape over the prosecutrix. She proved her opinion at point B on MLC Ex.PW1/A. She also stated that on 6.10.2003 after examining the prosecutrix, she preserved vaginal smear, High Vaginal Swab, pubic hair and panty of the prosecutrix and after sealing the same, she handed over the same to the IO.

PW2 is the prosecutrix herself and she, in brief, stated that on 6.10.2003 she and her friend Ashish went to Budha Garden to see the live Dalai Lama Camp. When they were roaming in Budha Garden, four military personnel came there and two of them caught hold of her and two caught hold of Ashish. She identified the accused persons present in court. She identified accused Kuldeep and Satender as the persons who caught hold of her and Harpreet and Manish as the persons who caught hold of Ashish. She stated that the two accused dragged her for 5-10 minutes in the jungle and there was a military vehicle parked there. In the meanwhile, two accused persons, who caught hold of Ashish also came there. Then these four accused persons forcibly dragged her in the vehicle and two of the accused persons sat on the front seat and two on the rear seat. After five minutes of travelling in the vehicle, accused Satender got the vehicle stopped and got her alighted from the vehicle and Sardar and fatty boy took her towards the bushes. The witness identified accused Harpreet and Satetnder as those two persons, who took her in the bushes and after taking her in the bushes, they started beating her and accused Harpreet and then accused Satender forcibly committed rape on her. After committing rape, accused Harpreet slapped her two – three times and took out Rs. 120/- from her purse and thereafter they went through the bushes and the remaining two accused also went away with the vehicle. She started weeping and after wearing her clothes started walking on the way from which they had brought her there. There she met her friend Ashish and police and she narrated the story to the police. The police recorded her statement Ex.PW2/A. Thereafter she alongwith police went in search of accused in the jungle and near Polo Club, there was a house like structure which was locked. The police loudly asked from outside the closed door, was any body present there? The accused Harpreet came out . The prosecutrix stated that she at once identified him as the person who had committed rape on her. The police arrested accused Harpreet. Then police took her to the hospital for her medical examination. The doctor took her clothes. Her parents also came there with the clothes. After 2-3 days, police again called her and she had shown the place to the police from where she and Ashish were kidnapped. On the day of incident, she could not show the place where rape was committed on her due to fear. On 17.10.2003 police called her in the jail. She identified all the four accused persons. She also stated that at the place where rape was committed, her handkerchief, one kadai wala button and blue colour toy of Cricketer, which had fallen down, and the handkerchief which the Sikh accused after committing rape threw after cleaning his private part were recovered by the police. The prosecutrix had identified her salwar, one ladies shirt and chunni as Ex.P1, P2 and P3, respectively. She also identified ladies underwear as Ex.P4 and her handkerchief as Ex.P5, her button as Ex.P6 and toy as Ex.P7. In her further examination-in-chief recorded on 26.7.2004, she stated that when the two accused persons were taking her for committing rape, other two accused persons who were standing near the vehicle stated them to come early after completing the job and they were guarding from there.

PW3 is Dr. Veena Mahajan, CMO, RML hospital. She, in her statement, has proved the MLC of accused Satender Singh as Ex.PW3/A and has given the opinion that there was nothing to suggest that this accused was not able to perform sexual intercourse. She also stated that after medical examination, the semen, pubic hair, undergarment and blood samples were collected and sealed and handed over to the IO.

PW4 is Dr. A.K Shrivastava , Sr. Scientific Officer, Biology Department, FSL Delhi. He has stated that they had received 20 parcels for analysis, details of which are given in the examination-in- chief of PW4. He has testified that the blood and semen stains mixed were found on vaginal swab, underwear, salwar, ladies shirt and handkerchief and the blood of B-group was found on these articles. He also stated that blood samples were putrefied and the semen stains were found on underwear and were of B-group. He also stated that the persons involved in this case including victim can be of B- group or O-group as observed in the reaction with Antigen B and Antigen H, respectively and when the reaction was observed in col. B and O in the same exhibit, the group is mentioned as B for that exhibit. He proved the reports, Ex.PW4/A and B and identified his signatures at point A to F on the same.

PW5 is Dr. Pradeep Saxena, CMO, DGHS, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. He medically examined accused Harpreet and has proved his MLC Ex.PW5/A. He stated that the person examined by him was capable of performing sexual intercourse. After medical examination, one blue colour underwear, pubic hair, blood sample and semen sample of the accused was collected and sealed with their hospital seal and was handed over to the IO.

PW5 also stated that he examined Ashish Kumar and found no external injury and prepared his MLC Ex.PW5/B.

PW6 is Ms. Barkha Gupta, Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (M.M.) who conducted test identification proceedings of the accused persons on 17.10.2003 at Central Jail No.4, Tihar. She proved test identification proceedings (T.I.P.) of accused Kuldeep Singh Ex.PW6/A and total proceedings Ex.PW6/B. She stated that the door of the room was closed and all necessary precautions of TIP were taken by her. She proved certificate given by her as Ex.PW6/C and directions for sending the same to Ld. ACMM as Ex.PW6/D. She proved test identification proceedings of accused Manish Ex.PW6/E and test identification proceedings of accused Satender as Ex.PW6/F.

PW7 is Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Ld. M.M, New Delhi and has stated, in brief, that on 12.11.2003 accused Harpreet Singh and Satender were produced before him along with application of IO for taking his blood sample. The application was marked to him by ld. Link M.M. On the next date, accused Harpreet Singh refused to give his blood sample . Accused Satender also refused to give his blood sample. They were warned that their refusal may lead to adverse inference against them during trial, but they insisted for refusal. Their statements were recorded. PW7 proved the application of the IO as Ex.PW7/A and the proceedings conducted by him under his dictation, ExPW7/B and the certificate given by him, Ex.PW7/C.

PW8 is Ashish Kumar and has stated, in brief, that on 6.10.2003 he along with the prosecutrix went to Budha Jayanti Park to see the function of Dalai Lama by scooter. On account of crowd, they could not see the function. They started walking on the sides of the pavement and went inside the jungle. There four persons in military dress came and two of them caught hold of him and other two caught hold of prosecutrix . He identified those two persons as accused Harpreet Singh and accused Manish and identified accused Satender and Kuldeep Singh as the persons who caught hold of the prosecutrix . The witness stated that he caught the feet of accused Harpreet and asked him where he was taking him and he stated him to keep quiet, go straight. Sardar came ahead and slapped him and took out Rs. 100/- from his purse. The witness stated that he had once given a jerk and after rescuing himself ran towards park and narrated the matter to security police, who was present for Dalai Lama security. At once 4-5 police officials and 10-15 people from public collected there and they started searching the prosecutrix in the jungle. They searched for 1 or 1 ½ hours. The forest was dense and after 1 ½ hours, he saw his friend prosecutrix coming from the jungle weeping. She also narrated the story to the police and stated that two accused, who caught hold of her, had raped her. Thereafter they went to the jungle where there was an office which was locked. The police officials loudly asked was any body there? On the second call, Sardar accused Harpreet Singh came out and the prosecutrix identified him as the same person who had dragged her and who did the illicit act (galat kaam) with her. The police made enquiries from accused Harpreet Singh and he disclosed that he alongwith one co accused committed rape on the prosecutrix and two of his colleagues were driving the vehicle. Thereafter, accused Harpreet Singh gave name of the other co accused persons and gave the name of accused Satender as the other person who committed rape on the prosecutrix and also name of the other person who was driving the vehicle. Thereafter, he had shown the place of kidnapping to the police.

The witness stated that on 17.10.2003 he was called to witness test identification proceedings. The witness Ashish, prosecutrix and her father went to jail in an auto and by that time, the IO had not come. The prosecutrix and her father went inside the jail and while he was standing outside the jail. 5-6 persons came there and asked his name and they asked him whether they had come for TIP of Budha Garden case and on his accepting this fact, they threatened him if he identified any person, then they would kill him. The witness stated that he was frightened and, therefore, he did not tell any thing to the IO and did not identify any body in the test identification parade and on the pretext of headache, he went straight to his house. From there, he went to his village Shabjapur.

PW9 is Constable Roop Chand, working as Photographer, Photo Section, P.S Parliament Street. He stated, in brief, that on 8.10.2003 he was working as photographer in crime team and as per request of the investigating officer, he went to Budha Garden and found IO and other police officials present there. He took 18 photographs of the spot inside the jungle. Positives of the photographs are Ex.PX1 to PX18. He also stated that he had taken 7 photographs of the vehicle standing at the PS and one photograph could not be developed, hence he handed over these photographs of the vehicle to the investigating officer which are Ex.PX19 to PX24. The witness had brought the negatives which are proved as Ex.PX25 to PX49.

PW10 is Shri Vidhya Dhar Singh, Constable/Sawar in Indian Line, PBG Lines, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi. He stated, in brief, that on 6.10.2003 his duty was at gate No.23 (vehicle guard duty) between 10.30 am to 12.30 pm and he again stated perhaps between 10.00 am to 12.00 noon. He used to make departure entry of the vehicles. On that day, driver Satender bearing NO.:96D!104744H was on kachra duty and took the vehicle for this purpose. The vehicle was taken outside by Satender, who made entry at 10.55 am in his hand and as per record, the vehicle returned at 12.10 p.m. He also stated that on page No.131 at Sr.No.19, the entry is in the hand of accused Satender. Attested copy of which is Ex.PW10/A. This witness was cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. but in the cross examination he stated that he did not state before the police that along with accused Satender, helper Kuldeep Singh and Manish were also present in the vehicle.

PW11 is Constable Ram Kumar, who stated, in brief, that on 6.10.2002, he was posted as Constable in PS Mandir Marg and was working as duty officer in Lady Harding Medical College. On that day, IO along with other staff and prosecutrix came to Lady Harding Medical college for medical examination of the prosecutrix . After medical examination, he handed over 4 sealed parcels and one sample seal to the investigating officer which, investigating officer seized vide memo Ex.PW11/A.

PW12 is Constable Raghuraj Singh who stated, in brief, that on 6.10.02 he was posted as constable in PS Chanakyapuri. On that day, he alongwith SI Satbir, Ct.Swaroop Chand and others were on law and order duty at Budha Garden. At about 11.45 am, a boy came and informed him that his girl friend had been dragged by four persons towards jungle and they were in military uniform. Thereafter, he informed SI Satbir Singh about the said information and they all proceeded towards jungle. On enquiry, the name of the boy was ascertained as Ashish. They searched the jungle on the directions of said boy but they could not get any clue. When they came out of jungle, they saw one girl weeping. The said boy pointed out that the said girl was his girl friend who had been dragged by four persons. SI Satbir Singh made enquiry from the said girl. She gave details regarding the incident. Thereafter, at her instance, they proceeded towards the jungle and after searching the jungle, they reached deep at ‘ghoda maidan’. One room had been constructed thereon. The said room was locked from outside. SI Satbir in a loud voice asked the inmate to come out from the said room. Thereafter, one Sardarji came out of the said room. The said boy Ashish told that the said person Sardarji was one of the four military persons who had dragged the girl friend. His name was ascertained and he disclosed his name as Harpreet posted at President Cell. The witness identified accused Harpreet and stated that enquiries were made from him and he confessed commission of rape with the girl. Thereafter, investigating officer inspected the place from where girl was kidnapped. Accused Harpreet Singh disclosed the name of three associates. In the meantime, Inspector Laxmi also reached there. The witness stated that he took rukka to the PS and got the FIR registered and returned to Budha Garden after getting the case registered. Investigation of this case was assigned to Inspector Laxmi. Accused Harpreet Singh was arrested in this case. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/A. He made disclosure statement Ex.PW12/B. He also stated that the prosecutrix further disclosed that one person with heavy built had snatched Rs.100/- from Ashish. On 6.10.2003, accused Harpreet was got medically examined and doctor gave sealed pulanda to him which he gave to the investigating officer . Thereafter accused Harpreet Singh was produced before ld. M.M and one day police remand was taken. Accused Harpreet Singh led the police party to Rashtrapati Bhawan. There the Colonel handed over the three accused Satender, Manish and Kuldeep to the police. They were brought to the Police Station (P.S.). They were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/C, D and E. They were interrogated. Their disclosure statements were recorded which are Ex.PW12/F, Ex.PW12/G and Ex.PW12/H. The witness has stated that on the personal search of accused Satender, cash of Rs. 220/- was recovered. Investigating officer prepared its pulanda and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW 12/J. Thereafter accused Satender, Manish and Kuldeep were got medically examined. On 8.10.2003, accused persons were taken out of the lock up and were deeply interrogated. They led the police party to the jungle. Accused Satender disclosed the place of incident. He also pointed out the place where rape was committed. He also got recovered from the said place one handkerchief, one cartoon like toy and one button which were put in a pulanda and sealed vide memo Ex.PW12/K. The witness also stated that accused Harpreet got recovered his clothes which he was wearing at the time of incident from the jungle at “ghora maidan” outside the room. The clothes consisted of one underwear, nicker, shirt, shoes, socks and uniform and these were seized vide memo Ex.PW 12/L. The witness identified the articles recovered from the spot as Ex.P6 and P7 and he identified the handkerchief as Ex.P5.

PW13 is ASI Rajpal, who stated that he was posted on 6.10.2003 as Duty Officer at Police Station Chanakya Puri from 8 am to 4 pm. At that time, at about 3.45 pm, he received rukka from Inspector Laxmi through constable Raghunath and on the basis of same, he recorded FIR No.247/03, copy of which is Ex.PW13/A. After registration of FIR, copy of FIR and original rukka were sent back to Inspector Laxmi for investigation.

PW14 is Constable Nettar Singh, who has stated that on 7.10.2003 he was posted as duty constable in RML hospital. On that day, accused Satender Singh was brought in police custody for medical examination. After his medical examination, as per directions of the medical officer, he prepared 4 pulandas consisting underwear of accused, blood sample, semen and pubic hair. The pulandas were sealed with the seal of CMO RML hospital in the presence of doctor and later on he handed over four pulandas and one sample seal to the investigating officer vide memo Ex.PW 14/A.

PW15 is Inspector Davinder Singh, Draftsman, Crime Branch, ISBT, Kashmeri Gate, Delhi, who stated that on 21.10.2003 on the request of investigating officer, he visited the place of occurrence i.e Jungle Budha Jayanti Park, where he took rough notes and measurements on the pointing out of SI Satbir Singh. On the basis of those rough notes and measurement, he prepared scaled site plan Ex.PW 15/A on 28.10.2003 with correct marginal notes which bears his signatures at point A. After preparation of scaled site plan, he destroyed the rough notes.

PW16 is Constable Umesh Kumar , who has stated that on 6.10.2003 he was working as D.D writer from 12.00 night to 8.00 AM. He recorded D.D No.5-B at about 7.30 a.m and proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW16/A.

PW17 is Constable Jagdish Prasad, who has stated, in brief, that on 16.10.2003 he was posted at P.S Chanakya Puri. He alongwith investigating officer Satbir Singh had gone to PBG line. There Major Rajiv Bansal, Technical Officer met them. The military vehicle was seized vide memo Ex.PW 17/A and photocopy of movement register was seized by police vide memo Ex.PW 10/A.

PW18 is Constable Satpal, who has stated that on 6.10.2003 he was posted as duty constable at RML hospital. After medical examination of accused Harpreet, the doctor handed over three pulandas with seal of CMO, RML hospital to him which, were handed over by him to the investigating officer and taken by the investigating officer into possession vide memo Ex.PW 12/DA.

PW19 is HC Kirodi Lal. He has stated that on 20.10.2003 he was posted as H.C at P.S Chanakya Puri and was working as MHC. On that day as per the directions of the investigating officer, he handed over 16 sealed parcels and four sample seals to SI Satbir vide R.C No. 93/21 to deposit the same at FSL Malviya Nagar. After depositing the same, SI handed over receipt copy to him. During his possession, the seals were intact and were not tampered with.

PW20 is Constable Idrish Khan, who has stated that on 6.10.2003 he was posted as Constable in PS Chanakya Puri and was working as motorcycle rider on that day. The duty officer has handed over him copy of FIR to be handed over to the senior officers. He went to Patiala House Court, PHQ and DCP Office and handed over the copies of the FIR to ld. M.M, Dy. C.P, New Delhi Range, Distt. DCP and ACP. After handing over the copies of FIR, he returned back to the police station.

PW21 is Lt. Col. Rajiv Bansal, who has stated that on 16.10.2003 he was posted as Major in President’s Body Guard Unit and was looking after the charge of Technical Officer. On that day he handed over the military vehicle No: 96 D 104744H Lorry 3 ton 4X4 GS Shaktiman to the investigating officer and investigating officer seized the same vide memo Ex.PW 17/A. The handing over and taking over memo was prepared by him and the copy of the same is Ex.PW 21/A. He also stated that he handed over photocopy of the movement register of the vehicle to the investigating officer, copy of the same is Ex.PW 10/A. On 14.11.2003 he sent a letter regarding the bonafide military duty of the accused persons on the day of incident i.e on 6.10.2003. The letter is Ex.PW 21/B. He also stated that letter Ex.PW 21/C bears the signatures of Major B.P Singh at point A.

PW22 is SI Naresh Kumar, who has stated that on 8.10.2003 he was posted as Incharge Crime Team, PS Parliament Street. On that day, they inspected the spot. One blood stained handkerchief was found at the spot and one button covered with a piece of cloth having flower on it was also lying there. One toy in the shape of a man was also lying there. Some hair were also stuck on the handkerchief and some hair were lying at the spot. He collected all the articles and handed over the same to the investigating officer, who seized the same vide memo Ex.PW 12/A.

PW23 is SI Satbir Singh who stated, in brief, that on 6.10.2003 he was posted at P.S Chanakya Puri. On that day, he alongwith HC Deep Kumar, Constable Sarup Chand, Constable Raghu Raj, Constable Raman Kumar, Constable Vasant Kumar, Constable Charanjit and other staff was present at Budha Jayanti Park and they were deputed for maintaining law and order for the assembly of Dalai Lama and their followers. At about 11.00 a.m, one boy namely Ashish came to Constable Raghu Raj and told him that four persons had dragged his girl friend inside the jungle and they were in military uniform and one of them was Sardar. Constable Raghuram came to him and informed about the facts. He inquired from Ashish, who told that his girl friend was dragged inside the jungle of Budha garden by four military persons, out of which one was Sardar. He further told him that Rs. 100/- was snatched from him by that Sardar. He immediately went inside the jungle alongwith his staff and Ashish and they searched inside. After some time, they saw a girl coming from inside the jungle. She was weeping. Ashish identified the girl and stated that she was his girl friend. On inquiry, the prosecutrix disclosed her name. She informed that she was dragged by four persons inside the jungle. The military vehicle was with them and she was raped by two of the said army men and one was Sardar and the other one was a fat person. She also told him Rs. 120/- was snatched from her purse by the Sardar, who dragged her. Thereafter, they reached at Ghoda Maidan, where they found one office. The door of that office was close. Then he asked inmate of the said office, if any, to come out from the said room. Thereafter one Sardarji came out from the said room. He was identified by Ashish and prosecutrix as one of the four military persons. The prosecutrix told him that she was dragged by said Sardar and Rs.120/- was snatched by him from her purse. On inquiry, said Sardar disclosed his name as Harpreet Singh. Ashish also told him that Rs. 100/- was snatched by said Sardar from him. Thereafter he interrogated him. Accused Harpreet confessed the commission of rape with the girl. The witness stated that immediately he informed the facts to his seniors and thereafter Inspector Laxmi Kanwat came to the spot. In the presence of Inspector Laxmi Kanwat, he recorded the statement of prosecutrix and gave his endorsement vide memo Ex.PW23/A and handed over the rukka to Constable Raghuraj for registration of FIR. Constable Raghuraj went to the PS and after getting registration of FIR, came back at the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed them over to Inspector Laxmi Kanwat. Thereafter, accused Harpreet took the police inside the jungle but he could not point out the spot where the rape was committed upon the prosecutrix. After brief interrogation, accused Harpreet Singh was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW 12/A. Disclosure statement of accused Harpreet Singh was recorded which is Ex.PW 12/B. Thereafter, Ashish took the police team to the spot where the prosecutrix was abducted by the four military persons/accused persons. Investigating officer prepared site plan at the instance of Ashish. Investigating officer accompanied the prosecutrix to Lady Harding Medical College for medical examination. The witness stated that he alongwith Constable Raghu Raj went to RML hospital. After medical examination, doctor handed over to him 4 sealed pulandas and one sample seal, which he seized vide memo Ex.PW 12/DA.

Thereafter, he returned back to PS and handed over the pulanda, seizure memos and statements to the investigating officer . Accused Harpreet was kept in lockup. Investigating officer sealed the suit salwar and chunni of the prosecutrix in a pulanda with the seal of SS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW/23/B.

Thereafter, they went to PBG Line and investigating officer moved an application to Assistant Commandar of PBG line to interrogate Satender, Manish and Kuldeep. The Commandar handed over these three accused persons to the investigating officer and accused Harpreet identified three co-accused persons. They were also interrogated separately. Personal search of all the three accused persons was conducted vide memo Ex.PW 12/C to Ex.PW 12/E. They were interrogated thoroughly and their disclosure statements were recorded vide memo Ex.PW 12/F to Ex.PW 12/H. On the personal search of accused Satender, cash of Rs. 220/- was recovered. Accused Satender told the investigating officer that Rs. 220/- were the same money which was handed over by accused Harpreet Singh on the day of incident. Investigating officer prepared a pulanda and kept the money inside and seized it vide memo Ex.PW 12/J. The three accused persons handed over their uniforms and told that they were wearing the same on the day of incident. The investigating officer seized the uniforms of accused persons vide memos Ex.PW 25/C to 25/E.

The witness also stated that accused Satender took the police team to the spot where he alongwith his co accused persons had committed rape upon the prosecutrix. Investigating officer prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW 23/F. At the spot, they found one handkerchief, one cartoon like toy and one button lying on the spot. These articles were seized vide memo Ex.PW 12/K. The witness also testified that military vehicle/lorry was seized vide memo Ex.PW 17/A and handing over and taking over memo was also prepared being memo Ex.PW 21/A. The witness also stated that he accompanied the investigating officer on 17.10.2003 to Tihar Jail for TIP of accused persons. He identified one button and cartoon toy as Ex.P6 and P7, the handkerchief as Ex.P5, salwar, suit and chhunni as Ex.P1 to P3. He also identified two currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination and one currency note of Rs. 20/- denomination which were collectively seized vide memo Ex.PW 23/P1. The witness also identified the military uniform i.e pant and shirt recovered from accused Satender as Ex.PW 23/P2 and P3. He also identified one military dress and cloth piece as Ex.PW 23/P2 and P3.

PW24 is H.C Jitender Singh who has stated that on 17.10.2003 after TIP of accused persons, the prosecutrix handed over to investigating officer one Kurta without one button which was seized vide memo Ex.PW 24/A. The witness identified the kurta as Ex.PW24/P1.

PW25 is Inspector Lakshmi, CAW Cell, the investigating officer of the case, who proved various steps taken by her during investigation of the case. She has stated, in brief, that on 6.10.2003 she was posted as Inspector at CAW Cell New Delhi. On receipt of message from control room, she reached Budha Garden. With the help of constable present there, she reached the spot where prosecutrix alongwith police officials including SI Satbir were present. They all were present near PBG Club, Ghoda Maidan. SI Satbir recorded the statement of prosecutrix and she had also put her signatures over the same at point C on the statement Ex.PW2/A. Rukka was handed over to Constable Raghuraj for getting the case registered. After registration of FIR, investigation of the case was assigned to her. She made inquiries from prosecutrix regarding the place of incident but she was not in a condition to tell the place of incident.

She corroborated with the statement of PW12 Constable Raghu Raj regarding arrest of accused Harpreet and conducting of his personal search vide memo Ex.PW 12/A and recording of his disclosure statement Ex.PW12/B. She proved site plan of the place of kidnapping at the pointing out of Ashish as Ex.PW 25/A. She corroborated with the statement of PW11 Constable Ram Kumar regarding handing over of four pulandas alongwith sample seal vide memo Ex.PW 11/A after medical examination of the prosecutrix . She corroborated with the statement of PW23 SI Satbir Singh regarding seizure of clothes of the prosecutrix vide memo Ex.PW 23/B.

She stated that accused Harpreet Singh was taken out of the lockup on the next date. He was produced in the court and one day police remand was taken. Accused Harpreet Singh led the police party to forest/jungle, but he did not get recovered the uniform and underwear and also did not take the police party to the place of incident. He was taken to PBG line for arrest of his associates. The witness stated that she handed over one letter to Assistant Commissioner Sh. B.P Singh, who produced accused Manish, Kuldeep and Satender who were identified by accused Harpreet Singh. They were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW12/C, D and E.

On personal search of accused Satender, Rs. 220/- was recovered from his pocket which was snatched from prosecutrix and Ashish and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW 12/J. The disclosure statements Ex.PW 12/F, G and H of accused persons were recorded. The three accused persons handed over their uniforms and shoes which were seized vide memos Ex.PW 25/C to Ex.PW25/E. The witness stated that the accused persons except accused Harpreet were kept in muffled face and were produced before the court. Prior to their production before the court, they were taken to Buddha Garden forest where accused Satender and Harpreet pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW 23/F. One handkerchief, one plastic toy, one button of green/moongia colour having flower on it were found at the spot which were seized by her vide memo Ex.PW 12/K. The witness stated that she prepared rough site plan of the spot which is Ex.PW 25/B. Accused Harpreet got recovered uniform from the bushes near Ghoda Madain which was seized vide memo Ex.PW 12/L.

The witness stated that on 9.10.2003 she went to Tihar Jail for getting TIP of accused persons conducted. The date was adjourned for 17.10.2003. On 17.10.2003 TIP of accused persons was got conducted by ld. M.M. The prosecutrix disclosed that the button recovered from the spot was of her suit. The witness identified the suit of the prosecutrix vide memo Ex.PW 24/P1. The witness stated that she got prepared the scaled site plan from Inspector Devender on 21.10.2003. Subsequently, she collected FSL reports Ex.PW 4/A and B. The vehicle was seized by SI Satbir. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared.

The witness identified the case property. She identified one button and one cartoon toy as Ex. P6 and P7, one salwar, suit and chunni as Ex.P1 to P3, one Rs. 20/- currency note and two hundred rupees currency notes as Ex.PW 23/P1, military uniform as Ex.PW 23/P2 and P3, military uniform pant, shirt and cloth pieces as Ex.PW 23/P4,P5 and P6 and kurta as Ex.PW 24/P1.

REFERENCES

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/_th

https://blog.ipleaders.in/dowry-death-understanding-basics/?amp=1

INDIAN PENAL CODE

INDIAN KANOON

Aishwarya Says:

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening

June 23, 2023