Karamjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—Kamlesh Rani wife of Veer Chand, as per the prosecution case, was raped by the appellant on 19th August, 1999 at about 9.30 a.m. in village Peerkot. On the next day, i.e. 20th August, 1999 at about 9.00/9.30 a.m., having felt humiliated, she had put herself on fire and committed suicide. She suffered hundred percent second and third degree burns over the whole of her body and as a result thereof, died. The appellant was charged for offences punishable under Sections 376, 306 and 452 IPC by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda and after culmination of the trial he was convicted for these offences vide impugned judgment dated 16th August, 2002. Vide a separate order of even date, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- , in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 376 IPC. He was further sentenced under Criminal Appeal No.1381-SB of 2002 Section 306 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- , in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. u/s 452 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2, 000/- , in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

To canvass acquittal, all the arguments raised by Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jagjit Singh Lalli, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, revolve around the delay in lodging of the report; whereas the prosecution has demonstrated that the immediate efforts made for registration of the case had borne no fruit and thus, the complainant had to approach this Court to seek registration of the case.

Before the brief facts of the case are recapitulated, some stark facts are required to be highlighted.

(i) On 19th August, 1999 at about 9.30 a.m. as per the complainant, his wife Kamlesh Rani was subjected to forcible sexual intercourse and on that day her statement was allegedly recorded by SI Iqbal Singh;

(ii) On 20th August, 1999 at about 9.00/9.30 a.m. Kamlesh Rani committed suicide and on that day allegedly the statement of Maya Devi PW-4, mother-in-law of deceased Kamlesh Rani, was recorded by SI Mohinder Kumar DW-3;

(iii) Statements allegedly recorded by SI Iqbal Singh and SI Mohinder Kumar DW-3 have not seen the light of the day as they are not a part of the record.

Complainant Veer Chand PW-2 got a complaint Ex. PD and Ex. PD/1 typed from a typist in the Court Complex at Bathinda and had sent the same to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda. No action was taken upon the same and the complainant had to knock the doors of this Court by filing Criminal Misc. No.M-31513 of 1999 and it was only when the orders were passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 3rd December, 1999, formal FIR Ex. PE/2 was registered on 31st December, 1999 at Police Station Rampura under Sections 452, 376 and 306 IPC.

In the context of above facts, this Court will have to determine as to whether the delay has any bearing; whether delay has been explained; or delay was used for consultations and deliberations to concoct a false version. These, being the crucial questions, require narration of facts as they emerge in the complaint Ex. PD submitted by complainant Veer Chand PW-2 to Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda. In his complaint Ex. PD, Veer Chand stated that he along with his wife Kamlesh, children and parents, was residing at village Peerkot since long. Appellant Karamjit Singh @ Babli was his neighbourer. On 19th August, 1999 at about 9.00/9.30 a.m. his wife was all alone in the house. At that time, the accused came to the house of the complainant with an intention to commit rape with his wife forcibly. He overpowered her and committed rape upon her. Kamlesh had raised a noise, which attracted Maya Devi, mother of the complainant, and on seeing her, the accused ran away from the spot. Kamlesh, while weeping bitterly, disclosed to her mother-in-law that she has been forcibly raped by the accused against her wishes. When the complainant and his father Des Raj returned to their house, Kamlesh while weeping, narrated the whole story to them. The complainant and his father went to the Police Post, Chauke and informed SI Iqbal Singh about the occurrence, who came to their house and recorded a statement of the victim Kamlesh wife of the complainant. The statement was read over to the victim and she signed it. In the evening SI Iqbal Singh took Karamjit Singh into custody. The next day, i.e. 20th August, 1999, complainant and his father went to Police Post, Chauke at about 9.00/9.30 a.m. to enquire about the case. At that time, mother of the complainant was also not at home. When she returned to her house at about 11.00 a.m. she found Kamlesh engulfed in flames of fire, and Kamlesh disclosed her that she could not bear the humiliation and face the society as she was forcibly subjected to rape by the appellant and hence, she had committed suicide by putting herself on fire. Maya Devi, mother-in-law of Kamlesh, raised a noise and tried to extinguish the fire. She also went to the house of the Sarpanch of the village. She informed one Jeet Singh at the residence of Sarpanch and Sukhdev Singh Member Panchayat. The complainant and his father were informed on telephone regarding the incident. They informed the police, whereupon SHO Mohinder Kumar reached at the house of the complainant and recorded a statement of his mother Maya Devi, wherein she disclosed the facts of suicide and reasons thereof. SHO Mohinder Kumar had also obtained signatures of the complainant and his family members on some blank papers. On the same day, i.e. 20th August, 1999 at about 6.30 p.m. post-mortem on the dead body of Kamlesh Rani was conducted at civil Hospital, Rampura in the presence Ravi Kumar, brother of the deceased. Thereafter, the family became busy in performing last rites of the deceased. On 5th September, 1999 when the polling was taking place, the complainant found Karamjit Singh @ Babli present in the village. He entertained doubts regarding intention of the police and got a complaint typed on 6th September, 1999 and thereafter, sent it to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda for registration of a case. As stated earlier, on the intervention of this High Court, case was registered.

The above said FIR was investigated and a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was entrusted for trial to the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda. As stated earlier, the appellant was charged for offences enumerated above. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Prosecution, in all, has examined five witnesses.

Dr. Ramnik Mangla PW-1 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kamlesh Rani on 20th August, 1999 at about 6.30 p.m. The deceased had suffered hundred percent second and third degree burns over the whole of her body. Cross-examination of this witness was made as to whether any external injury, abrasion, contusion or lacerated wound was found on the dead body or not, to project that at the time of rape, there was no struggle on the part of the deceased. In reply thereto, the doctor stated that since the whole body was burnt/charred and the skin was peeling, therefore no injury was found. The doctor further stated that he had not found any evidence of sexual rape or sexual assault as the genital organs had also burnt/charred. He further stated that the dead body in this case would have been burnt within one hour keeping in view 100% burns and the death could not be instantaneous. All organs, including brain and larynx were congested. Surprisingly, no question was asked to the witness as to whether the deceased could make any statement/dying declaration to her mother-in-law or not.

Veer Chand PW-2, husband of Kamlesh Rani, reiterated as to what was stated in his complaint Ex. PD. In cross-examination, he was candid enough to say that in his presence neither the rape was committed nor had Kamlesh Rani committed suicide. However, he was emphatic to the extent that on the day of occurrence when he returned home his wife had explained the incident of rape to him. This witness further reiterated that his signatures were obtained on blank papers by the police. He admitted that his signatures are there on Ex. PC below the statement made by Ravi Kumar, but stated that these signatures were obtained on a blank paper. He further stated that the signatures of his relations Ravi Kumar and Pawan Kumar etc. were also obtained on blank papers.

Malkiat Singh PW-3 stated that his house is adjacent to that of the complainant and the door of his house opens in the street. About two and a half year back when this witness was present at his house he heard a noise coming out of the house of the complainant, whereupon he came out of his house in the street and saw the appellant going towards the Chhappar (pond) after coming from the house of Veer Chand complainant. It was about 10.00/11.00 a.m. Maya Devi at that time was raising a noise and she disclosed to this witness that accused Karamjit Singh had committed rape with the wife of Veer Chand against her wishes. This witness further stated that on the next day, Kamlesh Rani after pouring kerosene oil on her body had put herself on fire and committed suicide.

Maya Devi PW-4, mother of complainant Veer Chand, stated that on 19th August, 1999 when she returned home, she heard shrikes and cries of her daughter-in-law. She ran towards the room of her daughter-in-law and saw the accused committing rape upon her. On seeing this witness, the accused after tying his string ran away from the door which opens in the street. She raised a noise and the people from neighbourhood gathered there. At about 12.00 noon son and husband of this witness had reached home. The incident was disclosed to them and they went to the Police Post, Chau-ke to inform the police. On the next day at about 11.00 a.m. after hearing the shrieks of Kamlesh Rani, this witness ran towards her room and found her in a burnt condition. Kamlesh Rani disclosed her that because of humiliation and acts of the accused she had committed suicide. Kamlesh Rani died at the spot. She further stated that the day, her daughter-in-law died her statement was recorded by the police.

Surjit Singh Khosa, DSP Vigilance, Punjab, Chandigarh appeared as PW-5 and stated that after the orders passed by this Court, FIR Ex. PE/2 was recorded. After registration of the case, he had carried the investigation and submitted a report u/s 173 Cr.P.C.

Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence and a statement of the accused appellant was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to party faction.

In defence, Jagir Singh DW-1 was examined, who stated that wife of Veer Chand had expired due to burn injuries. Police had come and all the relations were also called, and the complainant party had not made any complaint against the accused. He proved a writing (Panchayatnama) Ex. DB. It will be pertinent to notice the contents of Ex. DB. It states that mother of Kamlesh Rani had expired about 2 1/2 years before her death and due to this she used to remain depressed and had committed suicide. The writing Ex. DB has been signed by various persons including Veer Chand complainant; Ravi Kumar and Pawan Kumar brothers; Kaushalya Devi sister; and Des Raj father-in-law of deceased Kamlesh Rani.

Gurpreet Singh DW-2 had also identified his signatures on the writing Ex. DB.

SI Mohinder Kumar DW-3 had prepared the inquest report which contains statement of Ravi Kumar brother of deceased Kamlesh Rani, wherein no allegation has been levelled against the accused. He also proved Panchnama Ex. DE.

Mr. Sangha, during the course of arguments, has laid much emphasis on the statement made by Ravi Kumar in the inquest proceedings Ex. PC. Ravi Kumar has not been examined by the defence, therefore, his statement made in the inquest proceedings is not a substantive piece of evidence and thus, the contents thereof cannot be read by this Court. Ravi Kumar, at best, could be confronted with his statement Ex. PC and he was the one who could explain under what circumstances the statement Ex. PC was recorded. Veer Chand PW-2 has stated in categoric terms that the investigating officer had obtained signatures of his family members on certain blank papers. this Court must notice that Veer Chand PW-2, after the death of his wife, had taken all steps for registration of a case. He had also approached this Court by filing a petition for setting the criminal process into motion against the accused-appellant. It is not a case where there was any financial transaction between the accused and the complainant, or any previous enmity. It is also not a case of inimical relations. Admittedly, the present appellant is neighbourer of complainant Veer Chand. The complainant, at every given opportunity, had complained regarding the influence of the appellant and taken all steps for putting him on the trial.

Prosecution evidence can be classified into three parts (i) res gestae evidence (ii) dying declaration of the deceased and (iii) eyewitness account of Maya Devi.

On 19th August, 1999, Maya Devi is a witness to the offence of rape committed by the appellant. When she reached at her house, she had seen the accused committing rape and her daughter-in-law crying and raising shrieks. Seeing Maya Devi coming to the house, the accused after tying his string ran away from the spot. This is the eyewitness account. At the same time, Kamlesh Rani disclosed her motherin- law Maya Devi that she has been subjected to forcible sexual intercourse by the accused. Maya Devi raised a noise which attracted various persons including Malkiat Singh PW-3 and she disclosed them the factum of rape committed by the accused. This, in all, will constitute res gestae evidence. Kamlesh Rani on the next day, feeling humiliated, had committed suicide and had disclosed her mother-in-law Maya Devi the reason as to why she had committed suicide. This amounts to the dying declaration of deceased Kamlesh Rani to her mother-in-law Maya Devi PW-4.

this Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that the suicide had occurred on the very next day of rape. The complainant family was having children and relations, and the children of the family were to be married; therefore, to save the family from the ignominy always an effort is made that the factum of rape is not brought to the notice of all and sundry. Thus, even if immediate complaint is not made, delay can be seen in the context of an attempt to save the honour of family. After the deceased had committed suicide, it can be well visualized that the cause of suicide and rape became a talk of the village. Therefore, the complainant had mustered courage and had taken recourse to law to book the offender. It has been explained that signatures of the complainant and his family members were taken on blank papers and this is also explained in the writing Ex. DB.

Taking totality of circumstances into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the testimony of Maya Devi PW-4 aspires confidence. Thus, this Court affirms the findings returned by the trial Court and upholds the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376, 306 and 452 IPC. However, considering the fact that occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the year 1999 and the appellant has suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial, the sentence awarded by the trial Court u/s 376 IPC is reduced from eight years to seven years rigorous imprisonment. Whereas, the sentence of fine and default clause on this count and the sentence awarded under Sections 306 and 452 IPC is maintained. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

With the modifications in sentence noticed above, present appeal is dismissed.