High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 01 P&H CK 0201

Surinder Kumar vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 23 January 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ranjit Singh, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous M No. 2085 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 373 words

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner is accused of an offence u/s 376 read with Section 506 IPC. As per the allegations, he has raped 56 years old aunt. The counsel contends that, in fact, this is a dispute on account of a manure-pit adjoining the house, which has led to false implication of the petitioner. As per the counsel, a 20 years old boy would have no occasion or chance to do this sort of act, which is alleged against him. The counsel has made detailed reference to the medical jurisprudence to say that there was a delay of 2-1/2 days in conducting the medical. Report was also lodged after lapse of two days. Though as per the examination, the signs of sexual intercourse have been noticed, but this, the counsel contends has to be seen in the light of observations made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dr. S.P. Kohli, Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, , where it is observed as under:-

Presence of Smegma as Negativing Rape-1. In July 1921. Mt. Ramdevi aged 15 years, made a report that three young men, viz., Panchu, Debi and Jodha had committed rape on her. They were arrested and sent immediately to Modi for examination. None of them had any mark of injury on their genitals or anywhere else on their bodies. The first two had smegma on the glans penis covered by the foreskin; this proved that they could not have had sexual intercourse at least during the last twenty-four hours. The girl was also examined and found to have been used to sexual intercourse, inasmuch as her hymen had old lacerations. She had no mark of injury to her private parts or to any other part of her body. The men were released.

2.

Presence or absence of smegma on the glans can not be taken as conclusive. All these finer points otherwise would be led in evidence and would have to be appreciated by the trial Court, At this stage, it would not be appropriate to go into these details once there are specific allegations against the petitioner.

3.

At this stage, counsel prays for permission that the present petition be dismissed as not pressed. Ordered accordingly.