NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 70-72 OF 2006

JASWANT SINGH & ORS. … APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB …  RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

Four  persons  were  tried  by  the  learned  Addl.  

Sessions  Judge,  Ludhiana,  principally  for  offences  

punishable  under  Sections  376  and  366  of  the  Indian  

Penal  Code  (IPC).  All  of  them  were  convicted  and  

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years  

and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 376, IPC  

and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and

to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 366, IPC.  

All  the  substantive  sentences  of  imprisonment  were  

directed to run concurrently. By the impugned judgment,  

the  High  Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  confirmed  the  

conviction and sentence.  

2. These appeals are preferred by three of the accused,  

namely, Kuldip Singh, Major Singh alias Maiji and Jaswant  

Singh. The occurrence took place on the night intervening  

25th/26th June, 1989 in a village called Talwandi Rai. The  

prosecutrix was sleeping in the courtyard of her house.  

Her  adopted  parents  were  also  sleeping  in  the  said  

courtyard.  The  prosecutrix  around  11  p.m.  got  up  to  

answer  the  calls  of  nature  and  at  that  time  all  the  

appellants  barged  into  the  courtyard  and  gagged  her  

mouth  all  of  a  sudden  making  her  totally  helpless  and  

immobile. Kuldip Singh alias Rana pointed a pistol at her  

and then all the accused bodily lifted her to the house of  

Jaswant Singh. She could not raise hue and cry as she  

was in panic.  Major Singh alias Maiji  and Charan Singh  

forcibly thrown the prosecutrix on a cot. Kuldip Singh alias  

2

Rana removed her clothes forcibly and committed sexual  

intercourse  with  her  against  her  will  and  consent  and  

thereafter,  the rest  of  the accused had also  committed  

rape on her. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was allowed to  

go. She was threatened and warned not to disclose the  

occurrence  to  her  parents.  On  returning  home,  the  

prosecutrix narrated the occurrence to her parents.

3. On the following day, Surjit Kaur (PW4), mother of  

Prosecutrix informed Gurdev Singh, Sarpanch and Gajjan  

Singh, Lamberdar. She then went to police station Raikot  

to inform the police about the incident, but the concerned  

police  did  not  take  any  action  against  the  accused.  

Thereafter, a written complaint (Ext. DA) was filed on July  

5, 1989 before the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP),  

Ludhiana  which  was  in  turn  sent  to  Joginder  Singh,  

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagraon (DW2). The DSP  

visited  the  village  on  July  8,  1989  and  recorded  the  

statement  (Ext.  PD)  of  the  prosecutrix  on  the  basis  of  

which formal FIR (Ext. PD/1) was issued on the same day.

3

4. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Renu  

Baweja (PW1) on July 8, 1989. The matter was thereafter  

investigated by Inspector Piara Singh (PW8). The accused  

were also examined medically by Dr. Rajiv Bhalla (PW11)  

on July 10, 1989 and were found fit  to perform sexual  

intercourse.

5. The prosecutrix (PW2) is a crucial  witness and the  

whole case centres around her evidence. She passed out  

Matriculation in the year 1989. It is in her evidence that  

she was physically carried to the house of Jaswant Singh,  

appellant  herein,  where she was thrown on a cot;  that  

thereafter, the appellants one after the other committed  

rape  upon  her;  on  returning  home,  she  narrated  the  

incident to her parents; on the next day, her parents went  

to  police  station  after  informing  Sarpanch  and  the  

Lamberdar of the village. Smt. Surjit Kaur (PW4) is none  

other  than  the  mother  of  the  prosecutrix  who  has  

corroborated  the statement  of  the  prosecutrix.  Darshan  

Singh, Head Master,  Government High School,  Talwandi  

Rai  (PW6)  was  examined  to  prove  the  certificate  

4

(Ext.PC)  where  the  prosecutrix’s  date  of  birth  is  

mentioned as February 3, 1973. She was aged about 16  

years  as  on  the  date  of  occurrence.  Dr.  G.S.  Grewal  

(PW10) has medically  examined the prosecutrix on 19th  

July, 1989 and found certain injuries on her person which  

were meticulously noticed in judgments of the trial Court  

as well as the appellate Court which need no reproduction.

6. The  learned  Sessions  Judge,  upon  appreciation  of  

evidence and on an elaborate consideration of the entire  

matter,  convicted  appellants  for  both  the  offences  

punishable  under  Sections  376  and  366,  IPC.  The  

appellate Court re-appreciated the evidence, meticulously  

analyzed the same and found no merit in the appeal.

7. The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  mainly  

contended before us that there was unexplained delay in  

lodging the FIR which itself casts a serious doubt on the  

whole of prosecution case. We are not impressed by the  

submission. It is in the evidence of PW4 that she went to  

the police  station  the next  day after  the  occurrence  to  

lodge the FIR but the police did not take note of it. On  

5

5.7.1989, a written complaint (Ext. DA) was lodged before  

SSP, Ludhiana which was marked to DSP who visited the  

village on July 8, 1989 and recorded the statement (Ext.  

PD) of  the prosecutrix.  The prosecutrix  clearly  narrated  

the sequence of events in detail as to the manner in which  

the appellants committed the crime against her. The DSP,  

for the obvious reasons, made an attempt to sabotage the  

entire  prosecution  case  as  is  evident  from  his  own  

evidence. The DSP who was examined as DW2, brought  

into existence a  Panchayat Nama  (Ext. DB), the recitals  

whereof read as under:

“In  the  presence  of  the  village  Panchayat  and  respectables (name of the prosecutrix) adopted  daughter of Jagir Singh, Jat, resident of Talwani  Rai stated that on the night of 25-6-1989 of her  own free will she had gone to the “Chari” field of  Rana  alias  Kuldip  Singh,  accused  son  of  Shri  Harbans Singh, Jat, resident of Talwandi Rai at  about 10 p.m. That field was nearer her house.  There,  she  stayed  with  him  for  about  2  or  3  hours. When she returned home, she found her  father and mother awake. In order to save Rana,  accused from them, she falsely named Jaswant  Singh, Charan Singh and Major Singh that they  had forcibly kidnapped her. In fact, they had not  kidnapped  her.  The  statement  which  she  had  made for the registration of the case was false.  Dated : 17.7.1989.”

6

8. There  is  no  explanation  forthcoming  as  to  what  

transpired between 8.7.1989 when the FIR was issued on  

the strength of  the statement  made by the  prosecutrix  

and 17th July, 1989 when the Panchayat Nama (Ext. DB)  

was got recorded by the DSP (DW2). On the other hand,  

we are  required  to  notice  that  the  prosecutrix  and her  

mother (PW4) filed a further complaint (Ext. PHH) before  

the  SSP,  Ludhiana  on  22.7.1989  alleging  that  the  

signatures  of  the  prosecutrix  were  obtained  on  certain  

blank  papers  and  similarly  some  thumb impressions  of  

PW4 were also obtained. It was also alleged therein that  

DSP Joginder Singh (DW2) had threatened them to face  

serious  consequences  if  they  do  not  give  statement  in  

favour of the accused. It was further alleged that she was  

subjected  to  harassment  and  some  of  the  Constables  

caused  her  injuries.  The  prosecutrix  was  medically  

examined on 19.7.1989 by Dr. G.S. Grewal (PW10) and  

found as many as four injuries on her person and opined  

that probably they were caused about three days prior to  

the  medical  examination.  In  her  statement,  the  

prosecutrix  has  categorically  stated  that  “no  Panchayat  

7

assembled on 17.7.1989. I did not see any  Panchayat  

Nama  at  Jagraon  on  17.7.1989”.  The  signatures  were  

obtained from her  on  17.7.1989 after  beating  her  with  

‘leather  pattas’.  She  stated  “my  signatures  had  been  

obtained by the police on 17.7.1989 after beating me with  

leather pattas”.

9. The sequence of events in clear terms demonstrates  

the sinister and diabolical role played by the police and in  

particular, by the DSP, Joginder Singh (DW2) to sabotage  

the entire prosecution in order to protect the accused for  

obvious reasons. We are neither surprised nor shocked at  

the conduct of the DSP inasmuch as such instances are  

galore  in  this  country  where  the  police,  instead  of  

protecting  law,  take  the  law in  to  their  own hands  for  

extraneous considerations. We have no doubt whatsoever  

that  Ext.  DB,  whether  it  is  characterized  as  Panchayat  

Nama or  whatever  else  be,  it  has  been  brought  into  

existence and is the brainchild of the said police officer  

(DW2).  The  contents  thereof  cannot  be  taken  into  

consideration for whatsoever purposes. This document in  

8

no manner  creates  any  doubts  in  our  minds  as  to  the  

truthfulness of the statement made by the prosecutrix in  

her complaint to the SSP on 5.7.1989 and her statement  

of 8.7.1989 based on which the FIR was issued.

10. Considering this, we find no merit in the submission  

made by the learned counsel for the appellants that FIR  

was ante timed and brought into existence so as to falsely  

implicate the appellants. There is no reason to disbelieve  

the evidence of  prosecutrix  and her mother (PW4) that  

attempts were made to lodge the FIR on the next day of  

the  occurrence  of  the  incident  but  the  police  did  not  

cooperate  and initiated any action.  The attempt  on the  

part of the police to protect the accused from day one of  

the occurrence is clear and obvious.  

11. The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  made  an  

attempt  to  contend  that  the  appellants  were  falsely  

implicated in the present case due to enmity between the  

parents of prosecutrix and the appellants with regard to  

construction of a wall. The courts below having considered  

the similar  submission rejected the same and observed  

9

that the alleged dispute over a common wall was not of  

such a grave nature compelling the entire family of the  

prosecutrix  to  go  to  the  extent  of  putting  at  stake  its  

reputation and fair name of a young girl child to settle the  

scores  with  the  accused.  We  find  no  merit  in  the  

submission. The defence set up in this  regard is totally  

untenable and cannot be accepted.

12. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the  

prosecutrix  and  her  mother  (PW4)  so  as  to  doubt  the  

prosecution case.  

13. The trial Court as well as the High Court have, after  

considering the evidence carefully, given good reasons in  

support of the order of conviction. This Court, in exercise  

of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of  

India, does not act as a third appellate Court. Suffice it to  

hold that the verdict in the instance case did not result in  

any miscarriage of justice. The impugned judgment is not  

an erroneous one. Nor the judgment is vitiated on account  

of  any  error  either  in  appreciation  of  evidence  or  

application of legal principles.

10

14. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, made an  

attempt to appeal to the Court to reduce the sentence of  

imprisonment  awarded  by  the  Courts  below.  Having  

regard to the gravity of the crime, we are not inclined to  

consider the request to reduce the sentence.

15. No  other  point  is  urged.  For  these  reasons,  we  

confirm the order of conviction passed by the High Court  

and dismiss these appeals.

……………………………………..J. (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY)

……………………………………..J. (J.M. PANCHAL)

NEW DELHI, November 5, 2009.

11