AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bakhshish Kaur, J.
Heard.
This is the second bail application moved by the petitioner as earlier his bail application seeking bail was withdrawn.
On April 27, 1999, Balwinder Kaur was returning from the fields at about 2.00 P.M. When she reached near the Canal, Balwinder Singh alias Kalu (petitioner) met her near the fields of Karam Singh and asked he as to from where she was coming. He caught hold of her from the arms and took her into the sunflower fields, where she was raped. She tried to raise alarm, but the accusedpetitioner threatened her with dire consequences. Even then she raised alarm, which attracted Paramjit Singh and Dharminder. On seeing them, the accusedpetitioner ran away from the spot.
I have heard Mr. R.P. Dhir, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I.P.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab, representing the Staterespondent.
The reason for filing the second bail application as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the examination of Dr. Jagdish Singh Saini (P.W.1) during the trial, it is not the case of rape rather it suggest the consent of the prosecutrix. Similarly, Balwinder Kaur, prosecutrix, has also been examined and her statement is also sufficient to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.
The statement of Dr. Jagdish Singh Saini (PW1) is Annexure P/4, in his crossexamination he has stated as under :
"Injuries No. 4 and 5 on the (sic) person of the prosecutrix could be self suffered. Injuries 4 and 5 could not be caused before 30.4.1999. It is correct that according to Modi''s jurisprudence injury becomes bluish on the first day, bluish black on second and on third day it becomes brownish. Possibility of injuries No. 1, 2, and 3 on the person of the prosecutrix having been caused on 28.4.1999 cannot be ruled out. On the basis of the medical examination and report of the Chemical Examiner, we cannot say that rape has been committed or not."
The copy of the statement of Balwinder Kaur, prosecutrix, is Annexure P/5. She has stated that she had grappled with the accused for half an hour. It was then contended that if she had grappled with the accused for half an hour, then the injuries must have appeared on her person.
For the purpose of filing the bail application, the medical evidence brought on the record can be looked into, and considering the statement of the doctor as above and also that the prosecutrix has already been examined and there is no apprehension of petitioner tampering with the evidence, I admit the petitioner to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
The observation made above be not considered as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.