LexSAT PARKASH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 13 S.C.R.1254 SAT PARKASH v. STATE OF HARYANAANDANOTHER (Criminal Appeal No. 1163 of 2011) DECEMBER 09, 2015 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] C Penal Code, 1860: ss.363, 366, 366-A, 376, 368 - Crime against minor girl - Prosecution case was that appellant kidnapped a minor girl and raped her - His uncle and aunt knowing about the kidnapping helped him in 0 concealing the girl in their house and they all in furtherance of common intention committed murder by administering poison to her - Trial court acquitted uncle and aunt of all offences -Appellant was acquitted of offence of murder and convicted u/ss.363, 366, 366-A, 368, 376 - High Court upheld E the order of conviction - In the instant appeal, appellant is challenging the conviction order by placing reliance on the "suicide note" stated to have been written by the deceased- HELD: It is not in dispute that appellant had also made a similar attempt to commit suicide along with the deceased - F In the suicide note, deceased had made unequivocal statement t0 the effect that she had left her residence by her own free will - It was, therefore, not possible to record the guilt of appellant u/s. 363 - The only evidence available was that deceased was found at the residence of the appellant G based on which it was presumed that the appellant had kidnapped the deceased - The said presumption was wholly misconceived-As regards s.366, the note of the deceased indicated that she had committed suicide, rather than having married the appellant by disregarding the wishes of the H family - There was, therefore, substantial material to 1254 SAT PARKASH v. STATE OF HARYANAANDANOTHER 1255 establish, that the deceased had not been persuaded or A compelled to marry the appellant before her death - Therefore, offence uls.366 was also not made out - The inducing of the minor to constitute an offence u/s. 366A, should have· been with reference to an intent to force or seduce her " .. to illicit intercourse with another person ... " - There was no B mention of any other person in the sequence of a/legations levelled against the appellant - In view of the matter, the charge uls.366A was also not sustainable against the appellant -As regards the a/legation of rape, a mere act of sexual intercourse would have established rape at the hands C of the appe/fant against the deceased on account of the fact, that she was a minor on the date of incident- There was no evidence to conclude that sexual intercourse was committed on the deceased - Thus, the charge of s.376 also did not survive against the appellant - Conviction of appellant is D liable to be set aside. CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1163 of 2011. E From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in Criminal Appeal No. 105-SB of 1995. ~noop G. Chaudhary, Sr.Adv., Suresh C. Gupta, Birendra K. Mishra, Ms. Poonam Atey, (For Praneet Ranjan), Advs., for F the Appellant. Deepak Thukral, Dy. AG., Arun Tewatia, Asstt. AG, (For Dr. Monika Gusain), R. C. Kaushik,Advs., fortheRespondents. The tl udgment of the Court was delivered by . JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The appellant- Sat Parkash, his uncle - Hari Chand and aunt - Sarla, were charged with the following, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat on 18.10.1993: G H 1256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 13 S.C.R. A "Firstly: - That you Sat Parkash on 7 .. 6.1992 in the area of Ganaur kidnapped Kumari Sushila alias Punam, a minor girl aged about 15 years from the lawful guardianship of her father Jagdish PW and thereby you Sat Parkash accused committed an offence punishable B under Section 363 IPC within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly: - 1 That on the said date, time and place you Sat Parkash accused kidnapped Kumari Sushila alias C Punam, a girl aged about 15 year minor daughter of Jagdish PW with intent that said Sushila may be forced to illicit intercourse with you Sat Parkash and thereby you Sat Parkash accused committed an offence punishable under Section 366-A IPC and within the D cognizance of this Court. Thirdly: - That from 7 .6.1992 in the area of Ganaur, Murthai and other place, you Sat Parkash accused committed rape upon the person of Sushila alias Punam E and thereby you Sat Parkash commit and offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and within the cognizance of this Court. Fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.