High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
State of Punjab v. Veer Singh - CRM-348-MA-2006  RD-P&H 9865 (6 November 2006)
Criminal Misc No. 348-MA of 2006
Date of Decision :- November 9, 2006.
State of Punjab Versus Veer Singh
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHTAB S.GILL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALDEV SINGH
Present:- Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, D.A.G. Punjab.
MEHTAB S.GILL, J.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly held that the prosecutrix was a major and a consenting party. Preet Kaur PW5, the mother of the prosecutrix, has deposed on oath that her daughter was less than 16 years of age on the day of occurrence. The accused called the prosecutrix to a vacant plot and he raped her there.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.
Prosecutrix came into the witness box as PW8 and testified that the accused is her relative. He resided about half an acre away from her house and both of them were on visiting terms. Accused called her to a vacant plot at 1.30 a.m. (night) on the pretext that he was having some plan about her marriage. She went to the vacant plot and rape was committed Criminal Misc No. 348-MA of 2006
on her. Thereafter, she went with the accused in a room near Miran Kot Chowk, where she was confined for 8-9 days. Thereafter, he took her to Village Manawala and on the way, police apprehended them. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. No girl would go at 1.30 a.m. (night) to meet someone. The prosecutrix could have easily run away but she was apprehended by the police along with the accused and she stayed with him. Dr. Amarjit Singh, Radiologist DW1 proved his report Ex.DA and after performing ossification test, he stated that the prosecutrix was 17 to 19 years of age.
We do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court.
November 9, 2006 JUDGE
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.