LexPARSHOTAM LAL & ANOTHER versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 14 S.C.R. 1046 A PARSHOTAM LAL & ANOTHER ·y v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 940 of 2003) B OCTOBER 6, 2009 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] --4 Penal Code, 1860 - s. 366 - Kidnapping, abducting or --f'' inducing woman to compel her for mamage, etc - Allegation c that accused kidnapped minor girl from the custody of her parents and subsequently raped her - Deposition of A-1 that he got mamed to victim - Convicted u/s. 366 and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment - High Court reducing . the sentence to rigorous imprisonment of one year and six D months - Appeal by accused persons before Supreme Court .-i.. - - During pendency, victim filing affidavit that she has no grudge or ill will against accused or his family members - Two other persons filing affidavits that A 1 was of good character and did not commit the offence - Held: Acquittal of accused E on basis of the affidavits cannot be accepted - s. 366 is a non- compoundable offence and sentence awarded was already on the lenient side - Victim inspite of her so called mamage with A-1, ultimately mamed somebody else while A~1 and A-2 mamed somebody else - Thus, plea regarding reduction of F sentence is rejected - Sentence/Sentencing. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 940 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 13.11.2002 of the High G Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal ,.. . No. 137--SB of 1988. Dinesh Verma (for AP. Mohanty) for the Appellants. H 1046 PARSHOTAM LAL & ANR. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 1047 "f Kuldip Singh for the Respondent. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR J. 1. The present appeal has been filed challenging the conviction for the offence under Section B 366 of Indian Penal Code. f 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Tripta, who is the daughter of Puran Chand, was studying in 8th Class and was .. born on 13.6.1972. On 21.10.1987, Puran Chand along with his wife had gone for their respective jobs and children had left c for school. When they returned in the evening, they found that Tripta had not returned to the house. Search was made but Tripta could not be traced. Appellants-accused were also found absent from their house. It seems that no report came to be ~- )... made for five days and it was only on 26.10.1987, Puran Chand D' lodged a report to the police about the kidnapping of his daughter. The police then carried out search. On 4.11.1987, Tripta was found in the company of Parshotam Lal and Ved Parkash at Nakodar and they were arrested. It is alleged that during the elopement, the accused kept Tripta at Hoshiarpur E where both of them committed rape on her. For some mysterious reasons which are beyond our comprehension, the accused were not charged with the offence under Section 376 l.P .C. All that we see in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is that the charge for the offence under Section 376 l.P.C. F was dropped for want of territorial jurisdiction. We are completely at a loss to understand as to how the learned Sessions Judge lacked the territori.al jurisdiction if the kidnapping of Tripta and her subsequent rape were part of one and the same transaction. G - ~ 3. Be that as it may, the long and short of it is that the accused persons were never tried for the offence under Section 376 l.P.C. Here was the perfect scenario for conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 376 1.P.C. because Tripta had not even attained the age of consent i.e. 16 years. H > 1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 14 (ADDL.) $.C.R. ~ A She was medically examined after she was retrieved and it 1 ~ was found that she had been subjected to sexual inter-course and it was doctor's opinion that her age was more than 15 years and less than 17 years. The prosecution in support of its case led the evidence of Tripta, her father_ Puran Chand, two B doctors and the witnesses from the investigating agency. r- Accused Parshotam Lal examined Balwant Rai (DW1) in his ' defence who deposed that Parshotam Lal got married to Tripta. r Photographs Ex. 06 & 07 relating to this marriage were also --'.., produced. .. c 4. Learned Sessions Judge in his judgment held that Tripta was neither confronted with any plea of marriage nor with the· photographs relating to the marriage. It was also held that Tripta had not attained the consenting age and from the evidence of D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.