LexOM PRAKASH versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 544 • A OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2010) B OCTOBER 14, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss.376(2)(g), 107 and 109 -- Rape c of 15 year old girl - Conviction of A-1 and A-2 uls.376(2)(g), and A-3 (wife of A-2) uls.109 - Justification - Held: Justified - Evidence adduced by the victim was natural and tnistworthy - Delay in lodging FIR was sufficiently explained - Incident occurred at the house of A-2 and his wife A-3 - Positive D evidence adduced by the prosecution that A-3 aided the commission of offence by asking the victim to go to her house to take 'lassi' where A-1 and A-2 bolted the room and subjected the victim to rape. E Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:1.1. No doubt there is a delay of some twenty days in lodging the first information report but there is sufficient explanation on record for the same. PW5 (victim), who was minor on the date of incident, has stated F that she could disclose the horrifying incident only after her mother came back from her maternal house after 20 days. Explanation for delay in lodging FIR gets corroborated by the statement of PW 6 (mother of the victim). [Para 7] [548-E-H] G 1.2. The evidence adduced by the victim is natural and trustworthy and it does not appear that the victim has falsely implicated the appellants due to enmity. (Para 9] [549-D] H 544 • OM PRAKASH v. STATE OF HARYANA 545 1.3. In the present case, there is positive evidence A adduced by the prosecution that A-3 has aided the commission of offence by asking the victim to go to her house to take 'lassi' where A-1 and A-2 bolted the room and subjected the victim to rape. From the record, it appears that for about an hour, the victim was not B allowed to go out from the house where she was subjected to rape. It was the house of A-3 and her husband where the incident is said to have taken place. As such, both the courts below have rightly concluded that it cannot be said that A-3 has not abetted the crime c in the manner suggested by prosecution. [Para 15] [551- 1:-G] Ku/want Singh @ Kulbansh Singh vs. State of Bihar (2007) 15 SCC 670: 2007 (7) SCR 1178 and Priya Patel vs. ' State of M.P. and another (2006) 6 SCC 263: 2006 (3) Suppl. D SCR 456 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 2007 (7) SCR 1178 referred to 2006 (3) Suppl. SCR 456 referred to Para 10 Para 10 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 807 of 2010. E From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2008 of the F High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 35-SB/97. WITH Crl. A. Nos. 1309 and 1310 of 2009 Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra for the Appellant. Nupur Chaudhary, Vivekta Singh, Kamal Mohan Gupta for G the Respondent. H 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] '11 S.C.R.. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby conviction and 8 sentence recorded against accused/appellants Om Prakash and Kartar Singh under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, and one against accused/appellant Chhoti, under Section 109 IPC, are affirmed. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on the day of incident, prosecutrix aged about 15 years, was alone in her C house, in Village Jagan. Her mother had gone to Village Hasanga on account of death of her grand mother, and other family members were also not present in the house. Accused/ appellant Chhoti came there and asked the prosecutrix to bring 'lassi' from her house. On this, prosecutrix went to the house ' D of accused Chhoti but as soon as she entered the house, accused Kartar Singh (husband of Chhoti) and another accused Om Prakash, who were already sitting there, bolted the door from inside and the prosecutrix was raped by them. She was freed by them after about an hour. She was threatened E to be eliminated if she disclosed about the incident to any one. Prosecutrix came back to her house and did not disclose about the above incident for 20 days till her mother came back to th!=! village on 12.6.1995 from her maternal house. The prosecutirx narrated the incident to her mother whereafter she was taken F by her father to get the report lodged at the Police Station Agroha. On 13.6.1995, first information report was registered; and investigation was taken u
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.