CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/ CRA-S-1241 BALJINDER SINGH @ RAJINDER SINGH STATE OF PUNJAB CRA-S-1373 LAKHWINDER SINGH @ LAKHA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM:-HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE Present:- RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) 1. conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 29.05.2026 Pronounced on: 30.07.2026 Uploaded on: 30.07.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/ 1241-SB-2004 BALJINDER SINGH @ RAJINDER SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 1373-SB-2004 LAKHWINDER SINGH @ LAKHA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for the appellant. (through Video Conferencing) Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab ***** RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL, J. (ORAL) The present set of appeals is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 29.05.2026 Pronounced on: 30.07.2026 Uploaded on: 30.07.2026 pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced: operative part/full judgment BALJINDER SINGH @ RAJINDER SINGH …..APPELLANT ….RESPONDENT ….APPELLANT ….RESPONDENT RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Mr. Vaneet Soni, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for the appellant. (through Video Conferencing) Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab. The present set of appeals is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby …..APPELLANT ….RESPONDENT ….APPELLANT ….RESPONDENT The present set of appeals is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, whereby PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 the appellants were convicted and sentenced t imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under section 376(2)(g) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year each under section 506 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 1.2 Rajinder Singh, who was arrayed as accused No. 2 before the learned trial Court, and CRA who was arrayed as accused No. 3 before the learned trial Court, arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Since both the appeals emanate from the said judgment and rest upon a common set of fac disposed of together by this common judgment. 1.3 convict Manjit Singh @ Laddi, who was arrayed as accused No. 1 before the learned trial Court a infructuous by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2010, it having been brought to the notice of the Court that he had already undergone the sentence awarded to him and had been released on 25.04.2009 on gran and payment of fine. The fourth person named in the occurrence, namely Surjit Singh, who was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 01.10.2003, was subsequently discharged after the said summoning order 12.02.2004. 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 2 the appellants were convicted and sentenced t imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under section 376(2)(g) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year each under IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. CRA-S-1241-SB-2004, preferred by Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh, who was arrayed as accused No. 2 before the learned trial Court, and CRA-S-1373-SB-2004, preferred by Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha who was arrayed as accused No. 3 before the learned trial Court, arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Since both the appeals emanate from the said judgment and rest upon a common set of facts and evidence, they are being decided and disposed of together by this common judgment. At the outset, it may be noticed that the appeal preferred by co convict Manjit Singh @ Laddi, who was arrayed as accused No. 1 before the learned trial Court and had filed CRA-S-1134 infructuous by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2010, it having been brought to the notice of the Court that he had already undergone the sentence awarded to him and had been released on 25.04.2009 on gran and payment of fine. The fourth person named in the occurrence, namely Surjit Singh, who was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 01.10.2003, was subsequently discharged after the said summoning order was set aside by this Court vide order dated the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with a fine of Rs.3000/- each, and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under section 376(2)(g) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year each under IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2004, preferred by Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh, who was arrayed as accused No. 2 before the learned trial 2004, preferred by Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, who was arrayed as accused No. 3 before the learned trial Court, arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Since both the appeals emanate from the said judgment and rest ts and evidence, they are being decided and disposed of together by this common judgment. At the outset, it may be noticed that the appeal preferred by co- convict Manjit Singh @ Laddi, who was arrayed as accused No. 1 before the 1134-SB-2004, was dismissed as infructuous by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2010, it having been brought to the notice of the Court that he had already undergone the sentence awarded to him and had been released on 25.04.2009 on grant of remission and payment of fine. The fourth person named in the occurrence, namely Surjit Singh, who was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 01.10.2003, was subsequently discharged after was set aside by this Court vide order dated o undergo rigorous each, and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under section 376(2)(g) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year each under 2004, preferred by Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh, who was arrayed as accused No. 2 before the learned trial , who was arrayed as accused No. 3 before the learned trial Court, arise out of the same judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. Since both the appeals emanate from the said judgment and rest ts and evidence, they are being decided and - convict Manjit Singh @ Laddi, who was arrayed as accused No. 1 before the 2004, was dismissed as infructuous by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2010, it having been brought to the notice of the Court that he had already undergone the sentence t of remission and payment of fine. The fourth person named in the occurrence, namely Surjit Singh, who was summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 01.10.2003, was subsequently discharged after was set aside by this Court vide order dated PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 2. 13.10.2002, the prosecutrix, then about 13 years of age and a student of Class VIII in Government Senior Secondary School, Dina Naga to attend a Satsang at Nirankari Bhawan. After the Satsang was over, she left on her bicycle to visit her paternal aunt (Bua), Shindu Rani. At about 12.00 noon to 12.30 p.m., when she reached near the Government School of village Bara, Manjit S Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2) and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha (accused No. 3), who were known to her, reached there on a scooter, while another person, whose identity was then not known, also arrived on a bicyc accused allegedly intercepted the prosecutrix and dragged her into the adjoining paddy fields. It is alleged that Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha gagged her by placing his hand over her mouth, Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh caught hold of her arms and t Manjit Singh @ Laddi committed rape upon her after extending threats to kill her in case she disclosed the occurrence to anyone. Thereafter, Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha also committed rape upon the prosecutrix. her raising an alarm, Gopal Dass, her uncle, who was passing through the area on his way to the house of his sister, Shindu Rani, reached the spot, whereupon the accused fled from the place of occurrence on the scooter and the bicycle. The prosecutrix She was taken to the Police Station by Gopal Dass, where her st PA) was recorded, o made his endorsement (Ex. PA/2) and forwarded the ruqa Station, on the basis whereof formal FIR (Ex. PA/1) came to be registered. 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 3 The prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details, is that on 13.10.2002, the prosecutrix, then about 13 years of age and a student of Class VIII in Government Senior Secondary School, Dina Naga to attend a Satsang at Nirankari Bhawan. After the Satsang was over, she left on her bicycle to visit her paternal aunt (Bua), Shindu Rani. At about 12.00 noon to 12.30 p.m., when she reached near the Government School of village Bara, Manjit Singh @ Laddi (accused No. 1), Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2) and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha (accused No. 3), who were known to her, reached there on a scooter, while another person, whose identity was then not known, also arrived on a bicyc accused allegedly intercepted the prosecutrix and dragged her into the adjoining paddy fields. It is alleged that Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha gagged her by placing his hand over her mouth, Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh caught hold of her arms and the fourth person restrained her legs, whereafter Manjit Singh @ Laddi committed rape upon her after extending threats to kill her in case she disclosed the occurrence to anyone. Thereafter, Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha also committed rape upon the prosecutrix. her raising an alarm, Gopal Dass, her uncle, who was passing through the area on his way to the house of his sister, Shindu Rani, reached the spot, whereupon the accused fled from the place of occurrence on the scooter and the bicycle. The prosecutrix is stated to have become unconscious thereafter. She was taken to the Police Station by Gopal Dass, where her st PA) was recorded, on the basis of the aforesaid statement, SI Mukhtiar Singh made his endorsement (Ex. PA/2) and forwarded the ruqa Station, on the basis whereof formal FIR (Ex. PA/1) came to be registered. The prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details, is that on 13.10.2002, the prosecutrix, then about 13 years of age and a student of Class VIII in Government Senior Secondary School, Dina Nagar, had gone to attend a Satsang at Nirankari Bhawan. After the Satsang was over, she left on her bicycle to visit her paternal aunt (Bua), Shindu Rani. At about 12.00 noon to 12.30 p.m., when she reached near the Government School of ingh @ Laddi (accused No. 1), Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2) and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha (accused No. 3), who were known to her, reached there on a scooter, while another person, whose identity was then not known, also arrived on a bicycle. The accused allegedly intercepted the prosecutrix and dragged her into the adjoining paddy fields. It is alleged that Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha gagged her by placing his hand over her mouth, Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh he fourth person restrained her legs, whereafter Manjit Singh @ Laddi committed rape upon her after extending threats to kill her in case she disclosed the occurrence to anyone. Thereafter, Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha also committed rape upon the prosecutrix. On her raising an alarm, Gopal Dass, her uncle, who was passing through the area on his way to the house of his sister, Shindu Rani, reached the spot, whereupon the accused fled from the place of occurrence on the scooter and is stated to have become unconscious thereafter. She was taken to the Police Station by Gopal Dass, where her statement (Ex. n the basis of the aforesaid statement, SI Mukhtiar Singh made his endorsement (Ex. PA/2) and forwarded the ruqa to the Police Station, on the basis whereof formal FIR (Ex. PA/1) came to be registered. The prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary details, is that on 13.10.2002, the prosecutrix, then about 13 years of age and a student of r, had gone to attend a Satsang at Nirankari Bhawan. After the Satsang was over, she left on her bicycle to visit her paternal aunt (Bua), Shindu Rani. At about 12.00 noon to 12.30 p.m., when she reached near the Government School of ingh @ Laddi (accused No. 1), Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2) and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha (accused No. 3), who were known to her, reached there on a scooter, while another le. The accused allegedly intercepted the prosecutrix and dragged her into the adjoining paddy fields. It is alleged that Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha gagged her by placing his hand over her mouth, Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh he fourth person restrained her legs, whereafter Manjit Singh @ Laddi committed rape upon her after extending threats to kill her in case she disclosed the occurrence to anyone. Thereafter, On her raising an alarm, Gopal Dass, her uncle, who was passing through the area on his way to the house of his sister, Shindu Rani, reached the spot, whereupon the accused fled from the place of occurrence on the scooter and is stated to have become unconscious thereafter. atement (Ex. n the basis of the aforesaid statement, SI Mukhtiar Singh to the Police Station, on the basis whereof formal FIR (Ex. PA/1) came to be registered. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 2.1 visited the place of occurrence, inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan (Ex. PE). He also moved an application (Ex. PF) for the medico legal examination of the prosecutrix. Pursuant Ratinder Dhillon (PW medico-legal report (Ex. PG). The blood underwear of the prosecutrix were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PH). T vaginal swabs to HC Banarsi Dass (PW Chemical Examiner. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PB), human semen was detected on all the exhibits. The accus 21.10.2002. During the investigation, the scooter bearing registration No. PB-06-C-7441, allegedly used in the commission of the offence, was also taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PK). On completion of the investigation, th before the competent Court. 2.2 exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was committed to the Court of Session vide order dated 20.03 accused, the learned trial Court framed charges against them on 15.04.2003 under Sections 376(g), 506 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. examined as many as thirteen witnesses. PW 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 4 During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan (Ex. PE). He also moved an application (Ex. PF) for the medico legal examination of the prosecutrix. Pursuant Dhillon (PW-8) medically examined the prosecutrix and proved the legal report (Ex. PG). The blood underwear of the prosecutrix were taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PH). The doctor also handed over a sealed parcel containing the vaginal swabs to HC Banarsi Dass (PW-3) for onward transmission to the Chemical Examiner. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PB), human semen was detected on all the exhibits. The accus 21.10.2002. During the investigation, the scooter bearing registration No. 7441, allegedly used in the commission of the offence, was also taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PK). On completion of the investigation, the police presented the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the competent Court. Upon presentation of the final report, the case, being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was committed to the Court of Session vide order dated 20.03.2003. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, the learned trial Court framed charges against them on 15.04.2003 under Sections 376(g), 506 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses. PW During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, inspected the spot and prepared the rough site plan (Ex. PE). He also moved an application (Ex. PF) for the medico- legal examination of the prosecutrix. Pursuant thereto, on 14.10.2002, Dr. 8) medically examined the prosecutrix and proved the legal report (Ex. PG). The blood-stained salwar, kameez and underwear of the prosecutrix were taken into possession vide recovery he doctor also handed over a sealed parcel containing the 3) for onward transmission to the Chemical Examiner. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PB), human semen was detected on all the exhibits. The accused were arrested on 21.10.2002. During the investigation, the scooter bearing registration No. 7441, allegedly used in the commission of the offence, was also taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PK). On completion of the e police presented the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Upon presentation of the final report, the case, being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was committed to the Court of .2003. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, the learned trial Court framed charges against them on 15.04.2003 under Sections 376(g), 506 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded e guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses. PW-1, the prosecutrix, and PW-2 During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence, inspected the spot and prepared the rough - thereto, on 14.10.2002, Dr. 8) medically examined the prosecutrix and proved the stained salwar, kameez and underwear of the prosecutrix were taken into possession vide recovery he doctor also handed over a sealed parcel containing the 3) for onward transmission to the Chemical Examiner. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PB), ed were arrested on 21.10.2002. During the investigation, the scooter bearing registration No. 7441, allegedly used in the commission of the offence, was also taken into possession vide recovery memo (Ex. PK). On completion of the e police presented the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Upon presentation of the final report, the case, being exclusively triable by the Court of Session, was committed to the Court of .2003. Finding a prima facie case against the accused, the learned trial Court framed charges against them on 15.04.2003 under Sections 376(g), 506 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded e guilt of the accused, the prosecution 2 PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 Gopal Dass, her uncle, are the ocular witnesses to the occurrence. PW Banarsi Dass and PW transmission of the sealed parcels to the office of the Chemical Examiner, Patiala. PW- report to the Illaqa Magistrate and the senior police officers. PW Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman, proved the scaled s instance of the prosecutrix. PW and registration of the formal FIR. PW medico-legal examination of the prosecutrix. PW District Transport Office, Gurdaspur, proved the ownership of the scooter allegedly used in the commission of the offence. PW Radiologist, proved the radiological examination of the prosecutrix and opined her age to be between 15 and 16 years the Investigating Officer. PW examination of the accused. PW School, proved the school record pertaining to the prosecutrix, including her date of birth as 25.04.1989, and the relevant certificate (Ex. PR). Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. 4. circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence were put to them in their respective statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, pleaded false implication on account of enmity and claimed innocence. In defence, they examined Joginder Singh son of Avtar Si 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 5 Gopal Dass, her uncle, are the ocular witnesses to the occurrence. PW Banarsi Dass and PW-6 Kuldeep Kumar proved the custody and on of the sealed parcels to the office of the Chemical Examiner, -4 Constable Amrik Singh proved the delivery of the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate and the senior police officers. PW Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman, proved the scaled s instance of the prosecutrix. PW-7 ASI Des Raj proved the receipt of the ruqa and registration of the formal FIR. PW-8 Dr. legal examination of the prosecutrix. PW t Transport Office, Gurdaspur, proved the ownership of the scooter allegedly used in the commission of the offence. PW Radiologist, proved the radiological examination of the prosecutrix and opined her age to be between 15 and 16 years the Investigating Officer. PW-12 Dr. N. Vashisth proved the medico examination of the accused. PW-13 Pritpal Singh, Headmaster, Government School, proved the school record pertaining to the prosecutrix, including her of birth as 25.04.1989, and the relevant certificate (Ex. PR). Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence put to them in their respective statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, pleaded false implication on account of enmity and claimed innocence. In defence, they examined Joginder Singh son of Avtar Singh as DW Gopal Dass, her uncle, are the ocular witnesses to the occurrence. PW-3 HC 6 Kuldeep Kumar proved the custody and on of the sealed parcels to the office of the Chemical Examiner, 4 Constable Amrik Singh proved the delivery of the special report to the Illaqa Magistrate and the senior police officers. PW-5 Janak Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman, proved the scaled site plan prepared at the 7 ASI Des Raj proved the receipt of the ruqa 8 Dr. Ratinder Dhillon proved the legal examination of the prosecutrix. PW-9 Harjinder Kumar, Clerk, t Transport Office, Gurdaspur, proved the ownership of the scooter allegedly used in the commission of the offence. PW-10 Dr. Jagjivan Lal, Radiologist, proved the radiological examination of the prosecutrix and opined her age to be between 15 and 16 years. PW-11 SI Mukhtiar Singh is 12 Dr. N. Vashisth proved the medico-legal 13 Pritpal Singh, Headmaster, Government School, proved the school record pertaining to the prosecutrix, including her of birth as 25.04.1989, and the relevant certificate (Ex. PR). Thereafter, After the prosecution closed its evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence put to them in their respective statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, pleaded false implication on account of enmity and claimed innocence. In defence, they ngh as DW-1, who deposed that no 3 HC 6 Kuldeep Kumar proved the custody and on of the sealed parcels to the office of the Chemical Examiner, 4 Constable Amrik Singh proved the delivery of the special 5 Janak ite plan prepared at the 7 ASI Des Raj proved the receipt of the ruqa Dhillon proved the 9 Harjinder Kumar, Clerk, t Transport Office, Gurdaspur, proved the ownership of the scooter 10 Dr. Jagjivan Lal, Radiologist, proved the radiological examination of the prosecutrix and 11 SI Mukhtiar Singh is legal 13 Pritpal Singh, Headmaster, Government School, proved the school record pertaining to the prosecutrix, including her of birth as 25.04.1989, and the relevant certificate (Ex. PR). Thereafter, After the prosecution closed its evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the prosecution evidence put to them in their respective statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, pleaded false implication on account of enmity and claimed innocence. In defence, they 1, who deposed that no PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 such occurrence had taken place in his fields. They further examined Ashwani Tuli, Draftsman, as DW (Ex. D-1), and Sukhdev Singh as DW was closed. 4.1 adduced by the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Court held all the three accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 read with Section 34 IP sentenced them accordingly vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals have been preferred by Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2) and Lakhwinder Sing 5. conviction and order of sentence on the ground that the same are contrary to the evidence on record and suffer from a complete misappreciation of the evidence. 5.1 the material contradictions, inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities in the prosecution case, resulting in an erroneous conviction. It is argued that the statements of PW Mukhtiar Singh, Investigating Officer, suffer from material discrepancies with regard to the time of occurrence, the preparation of the site plan and the identification of the accused. It is further submitted that no tes 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 6 such occurrence had taken place in his fields. They further examined Ashwani Tuli, Draftsman, as DW-2, who proved the scaled site plan 1), and Sukhdev Singh as DW-3. Thereafter, the defence evidence Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Court held all the three accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and, consequently, convicted and sentenced them accordingly vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals have been preferred by Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2) and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha (accused No. 3). Learned Amicus Curiae assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the ground that the same are contrary to the evidence on record and suffer from a complete misappreciation of the It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the material contradictions, inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities in the prosecution case, resulting in an erroneous conviction. It is argued that the statements of PW-1, the prosecutrix, PW Mukhtiar Singh, Investigating Officer, suffer from material discrepancies with regard to the time of occurrence, the preparation of the site plan and the identification of the accused. It is further submitted that no tes such occurrence had taken place in his fields. They further examined 2, who proved the scaled site plan 3. Thereafter, the defence evidence Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Court held all the three accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) C and, consequently, convicted and sentenced them accordingly vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals have been preferred by Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2) and h @ Lakha (accused No. 3). Learned Amicus Curiae assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the ground that the same are contrary to the evidence on record and suffer from a complete misappreciation of the It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the material contradictions, inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities in the prosecution case, resulting in an erroneous conviction. It is argued that utrix, PW-2 Gopal Dass and PW-11 SI Mukhtiar Singh, Investigating Officer, suffer from material discrepancies with regard to the time of occurrence, the preparation of the site plan and the identification of the accused. It is further submitted that no test such occurrence had taken place in his fields. They further examined 2, who proved the scaled site plan 3. Thereafter, the defence evidence Upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Court held all the three accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) C and, consequently, convicted and sentenced them accordingly vide the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals have been preferred by Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2) and Learned Amicus Curiae assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence on the ground that the same are contrary to the evidence on record and suffer from a complete misappreciation of the It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the material contradictions, inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities in the prosecution case, resulting in an erroneous conviction. It is argued that 11 SI Mukhtiar Singh, Investigating Officer, suffer from material discrepancies with regard to the time of occurrence, the preparation of the site plan and the t PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 identification parade was conducted and the appellants were identified by the prosecutrix for the first time during trial. 5.2 forensic evidence does not lend assurance to the prosecution ve Referring to the testimonies of PW Vashisth, it is argued that no external injury was found either on the person of the prosecutrix or on that of any of the accused. It is further submitted that although the o mud stains were found on the clothes of the prosecutrix. 5.3 the exhibits, no grouping or comparison test was conducted and no b semen samples of either of the appellants were obtained for comparison. Consequently, the scientific evidence fails to connect either of the appellants with the alleged offence. It is further argued that the medical opinion merely states that the p by itself, is insufficient to establish the charge of rape. 5.4 the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the radiological opinion assessed her age to be between 15 and 16 years, subject to the permissible margin of variation, in which event she could well have been above sixteen years of age. It is submit parents were examined and, therefore, her age has not been proved in accordance with law. It is further argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 7 identification parade was conducted and the appellants were identified by the prosecutrix for the first time during trial. Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the medical and forensic evidence does not lend assurance to the prosecution ve Referring to the testimonies of PW-8 Dr. Ratinder Vashisth, it is argued that no external injury was found either on the person of the prosecutrix or on that of any of the accused. It is further submitted that although the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the paddy fields, no mud stains were found on the clothes of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that though human semen was detected on the exhibits, no grouping or comparison test was conducted and no b semen samples of either of the appellants were obtained for comparison. Consequently, the scientific evidence fails to connect either of the appellants with the alleged offence. It is further argued that the medical opinion merely states that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, which, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charge of rape. It is next contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the radiological opinion assessed her age to be between 15 and 16 years, subject to the permissible margin of variation, in which event she could well have been above sixteen years of age. It is submitted that neither her birth certificate was produced nor her parents were examined and, therefore, her age has not been proved in accordance with law. It is further argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix identification parade was conducted and the appellants were identified by the Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the medical and forensic evidence does not lend assurance to the prosecution version. Ratinder Dhillon and PW-12 Dr. N. Vashisth, it is argued that no external injury was found either on the person of the prosecutrix or on that of any of the accused. It is further submitted that ccurrence is alleged to have taken place in the paddy fields, no mud stains were found on the clothes of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that though human semen was detected on the exhibits, no grouping or comparison test was conducted and no blood or semen samples of either of the appellants were obtained for comparison. Consequently, the scientific evidence fails to connect either of the appellants with the alleged offence. It is further argued that the medical opinion merely ossibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, which, by itself, is insufficient to establish the charge of rape. It is next contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date of occurrence. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the radiological opinion assessed her age to be between 15 and 16 years, subject to the permissible margin of variation, in which event she could well have been above sixteen years of ted that neither her birth certificate was produced nor her parents were examined and, therefore, her age has not been proved in accordance with law. It is further argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix identification parade was conducted and the appellants were identified by the Learned Amicus Curiae further contended that the medical and rsion. 12 Dr. N. Vashisth, it is argued that no external injury was found either on the person of the prosecutrix or on that of any of the accused. It is further submitted that ccurrence is alleged to have taken place in the paddy fields, no It is also contended that though human semen was detected on lood or semen samples of either of the appellants were obtained for comparison. Consequently, the scientific evidence fails to connect either of the appellants with the alleged offence. It is further argued that the medical opinion merely ossibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, which, It is next contended that the prosecution has failed to prove that of occurrence. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the radiological opinion assessed her age to be between 15 and 16 years, subject to the permissible margin of variation, in which event she could well have been above sixteen years of ted that neither her birth certificate was produced nor her parents were examined and, therefore, her age has not been proved in accordance with law. It is further argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 does not inspire confidence. According to the I was no Nirankari Bhawan at Dina Nagar and the same was situated at a distance of about two to two and a half miles therefrom. It is submitted that PW-2 Gopal Dass, being the real uncle of the prosecutrix, is an interested witness and that his testimony is materially inconsistent with that of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that despite the occurrence having allegedly taken place at a distance of about four kilometres from the Police Station, there was an unexplained delay i accused do not find mention in the rough site plan (Ex. PE), the application for medico-legal examination (Ex. PF) or the recovery memo (Ex. PH). 5.5 2), learned Amicus Curiae further contended that he has been falsely implicated and that no allegation of rape has been attributed to him. It is submitted that, according to the prosecution itself, the acts of rape are attributed only to co @ Lakha, while the only allegation against this appellant is that he caught hold of the prosecutrix. It is argued that even this allegation is rendered doubtful by the material inconsistency between the statements of PW PW-2 Gopal Dass caught hold of her arms, whereas PW told him that the appellant had caught hold of her head. It is further submitted that the absence of any inju belies the allegation that she was forcibly restrained by this appellant. 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 8 does not inspire confidence. According to the I was no Nirankari Bhawan at Dina Nagar and the same was situated at a distance of about two to two and a half miles therefrom. It is submitted that 2 Gopal Dass, being the real uncle of the prosecutrix, is an interested s and that his testimony is materially inconsistent with that of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that despite the occurrence having allegedly taken place at a distance of about four kilometres from the Police Station, there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Further, the names of the accused do not find mention in the rough site plan (Ex. PE), the application legal examination (Ex. PF) or the recovery memo (Ex. PH). Qua appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2), learned Amicus Curiae further contended that he has been falsely implicated and that no allegation of rape has been attributed to him. It is submitted that, according to the prosecution itself, the acts of rape are attributed only to co-accused Manjit Singh @ Laddi and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, while the only allegation against this appellant is that he caught hold of the prosecutrix. It is argued that even this allegation is rendered doubtful by the material inconsistency between the statements of PW Gopal Dass, inasmuch as the prosecutrix stated that this appellant caught hold of her arms, whereas PW-2 Gopal Dass told him that the appellant had caught hold of her head. It is further submitted that the absence of any injury on the person of the prosecutrix belies the allegation that she was forcibly restrained by this appellant. does not inspire confidence. According to the Investigating Officer, there was no Nirankari Bhawan at Dina Nagar and the same was situated at a distance of about two to two and a half miles therefrom. It is submitted that 2 Gopal Dass, being the real uncle of the prosecutrix, is an interested s and that his testimony is materially inconsistent with that of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that despite the occurrence having allegedly taken place at a distance of about four kilometres from the Police Station, n lodging the FIR. Further, the names of the accused do not find mention in the rough site plan (Ex. PE), the application legal examination (Ex. PF) or the recovery memo (Ex. PH). Qua appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2), learned Amicus Curiae further contended that he has been falsely implicated and that no allegation of rape has been attributed to him. It is submitted that, according to the prosecution itself, the acts of rape are Singh @ Laddi and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, while the only allegation against this appellant is that he caught hold of the prosecutrix. It is argued that even this allegation is rendered doubtful by the material inconsistency between the statements of PW-1 and , inasmuch as the prosecutrix stated that this appellant Gopal Dass deposed that she had told him that the appellant had caught hold of her head. It is further ry on the person of the prosecutrix belies the allegation that she was forcibly restrained by this appellant. nvestigating Officer, there was no Nirankari Bhawan at Dina Nagar and the same was situated at a distance of about two to two and a half miles therefrom. It is submitted that 2 Gopal Dass, being the real uncle of the prosecutrix, is an interested s and that his testimony is materially inconsistent with that of the prosecutrix. It is also contended that despite the occurrence having allegedly taken place at a distance of about four kilometres from the Police Station, n lodging the FIR. Further, the names of the accused do not find mention in the rough site plan (Ex. PE), the application legal examination (Ex. PF) or the recovery memo (Ex. PH). Qua appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2), learned Amicus Curiae further contended that he has been falsely implicated and that no allegation of rape has been attributed to him. It is submitted that, according to the prosecution itself, the acts of rape are Singh @ Laddi and Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, while the only allegation against this appellant is that he caught hold of the prosecutrix. It is argued that even this allegation is rendered and , inasmuch as the prosecutrix stated that this appellant deposed that she had told him that the appellant had caught hold of her head. It is further ry on the person of the prosecutrix PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 5.6 busy road in broad daylight, yet no independent witness was associated during the investigation. Lastly, it is contended that once the order summoning Surjit Singh, who was alleged to have caught hold of the legs of the prosecutrix, was set aside by this Court, the prosecution version itself stands substantially weakened. It is furt Section 506 IPC is made out against this appellant, as no allegation of extending any threat has been attributed to him. 5.7 Curiae prayed that the impugned sentence be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges by extending to them the benefit of doubt. 6. judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the same is founded upon a proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and calls for no interfe 6.1 cogent, natural and inspires confidence. The prosecution version, it was argued, finds substantial corroboration from the testimony of PW Dass, who reached prosecutrix, as well as from the medical and scientific evidence adduced on record. Referring to the testimony of PW medico-legal report and the report of the Chemical Examiner 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 9 It is also argued that the alleged occurrence took place on a busy road in broad daylight, yet no independent witness was associated the investigation. Lastly, it is contended that once the order summoning Surjit Singh, who was alleged to have caught hold of the legs of the prosecutrix, was set aside by this Court, the prosecution version itself stands substantially weakened. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 506 IPC is made out against this appellant, as no allegation of extending any threat has been attributed to him. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned Amicus Curiae prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges by extending to them the benefit of doubt. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the same is founded upon a proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and calls for no interfe It was contended that the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW cogent, natural and inspires confidence. The prosecution version, it was argued, finds substantial corroboration from the testimony of PW Dass, who reached the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, as well as from the medical and scientific evidence adduced on record. Referring to the testimony of PW legal report and the report of the Chemical Examiner It is also argued that the alleged occurrence took place on a busy road in broad daylight, yet no independent witness was associated the investigation. Lastly, it is contended that once the order summoning Surjit Singh, who was alleged to have caught hold of the legs of the prosecutrix, was set aside by this Court, the prosecution version itself her submitted that no offence under Section 506 IPC is made out against this appellant, as no allegation of extending any threat has been attributed to him. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned Amicus judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges by Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the same is founded upon a proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and calls for no interference by this Court. It was contended that the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) is cogent, natural and inspires confidence. The prosecution version, it was argued, finds substantial corroboration from the testimony of PW-2 Gopal the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, as well as from the medical and scientific evidence adduced on record. Referring to the testimony of PW-8 Dr. Ratinder Dhillon, the legal report and the report of the Chemical Examiner, learned State It is also argued that the alleged occurrence took place on a busy road in broad daylight, yet no independent witness was associated the investigation. Lastly, it is contended that once the order summoning Surjit Singh, who was alleged to have caught hold of the legs of the prosecutrix, was set aside by this Court, the prosecution version itself her submitted that no offence under Section 506 IPC is made out against this appellant, as no allegation of On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned Amicus judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges by Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the same is founded upon a proper appreciation of the oral as well as documentary 1) is cogent, natural and inspires confidence. The prosecution version, it was 2 Gopal the place of occurrence on hearing the cries of the prosecutrix, as well as from the medical and scientific evidence adduced on Dhillon, the , learned State PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 counsel submitted that the presence of human semen on the exhibits lends due assurance to the prosecution case. 6.2 was a minor on the date of the occurrence. In this regard, re upon the testimony of PW showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 25.04.1989, which is duly corroborated by the radiological opinion of PW 6.3 the prosecutrix and had been specifically named in the First Information Report, there was no occasion or necessity for holding a test identification parade. 6.4 Information Report stands satisfactorily explained by the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of PW 6.5 pointed out by the defence are minor in nature and the prosecution case or impair the credibility of its witnesses. It was also contended that no material has been brought on record to establish any previous enmity so as to furnish a motive for the false implication of the appellants. 6.6 counsel prayed for dismissal of both the appeals. 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 10 counsel submitted that the presence of human semen on the exhibits lends due assurance to the prosecution case. Learned State counsel further contended that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the occurrence. In this regard, re upon the testimony of PW-13 Pritpal Singh, who proved the school record showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 25.04.1989, which is duly corroborated by the radiological opinion of PW It was further submitted that since the appellants were known to the prosecutrix and had been specifically named in the First Information Report, there was no occasion or necessity for holding a test identification It was next submitted that the delay in lodgin Information Report stands satisfactorily explained by the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-2 Gopal Dass. Learned State counsel further argued that the discrepancies pointed out by the defence are minor in nature and the prosecution case or impair the credibility of its witnesses. It was also contended that no material has been brought on record to establish any previous enmity so as to furnish a motive for the false implication of the On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel prayed for dismissal of both the appeals. counsel submitted that the presence of human semen on the exhibits lends Learned State counsel further contended that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the occurrence. In this regard, reliance was placed 13 Pritpal Singh, who proved the school record showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 25.04.1989, which is duly corroborated by the radiological opinion of PW-10 Dr. Jagjivan Lal. mitted that since the appellants were known to the prosecutrix and had been specifically named in the First Information Report, there was no occasion or necessity for holding a test identification It was next submitted that the delay in lodging the First Information Report stands satisfactorily explained by the prosecution 2 Gopal Dass. Learned State counsel further argued that the discrepancies pointed out by the defence are minor in nature and do not go to the root of the prosecution case or impair the credibility of its witnesses. It was also contended that no material has been brought on record to establish any previous enmity so as to furnish a motive for the false implication of the On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned State counsel prayed for dismissal of both the appeals. counsel submitted that the presence of human semen on the exhibits lends Learned State counsel further contended that the prosecutrix liance was placed 13 Pritpal Singh, who proved the school record showing the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 25.04.1989, which is duly mitted that since the appellants were known to the prosecutrix and had been specifically named in the First Information Report, there was no occasion or necessity for holding a test identification g the First Information Report stands satisfactorily explained by the prosecution Learned State counsel further argued that the discrepancies do not go to the root of the prosecution case or impair the credibility of its witnesses. It was also contended that no material has been brought on record to establish any previous enmity so as to furnish a motive for the false implication of the On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned State PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 7. appellants and learned State counsel at considerable length and have carefully gone through the record of the case with their able assistance. Before adverting to the rival submissions and examining the merits of the controversy, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions, namely Sections 375, 376(2)(g), 506 Code, 1860, as applicable on the date of the occurrence and Section 114 the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which have a direct bearing on the controversy involved in the present appeals. "375. Rape A man is said to commit excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: First. Secondly. xxxxx Sixthly. years of age. Explanation. intercourse necessary to the offence of rape." "376. Punishment for rape: (2) Whoever, xxxxxx (g) commits gang rape, shall be punished shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine: 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 11 I have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance. Before adverting to the rival submissions and examining the merits of the controversy, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions, namely Sections 375, 376(2)(g), 506 Code, 1860, as applicable on the date of the occurrence and Section 114 the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which have a direct bearing on the controversy involved in the present appeals. 375. Rape: A man is said to commit "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: First. - Against her will. Secondly. - Without her consent. xxxxx Sixthly. - With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation. - Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape." 376. Punishment for rape: (2) Whoever, - xxxxxx (g) commits gang rape, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall also be liable to fine: I have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance. Before adverting to the rival submissions and examining the merits of the controversy, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions, namely Sections 375, 376(2)(g), 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as applicable on the date of the occurrence and Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which have a direct bearing on the "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:- her consent, when she is under sixteen Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape." with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall I have heard learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants and learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record of the case with their able assistance. Before adverting to the rival submissions and examining the merits of the controversy, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant statutory and 34 of the Indian Penal A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which have a direct bearing on the "rape" who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances her consent, when she is under sixteen Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may be for life and shall PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of im either description for a term of less than ten years. Explanation 1. group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rap within the meaning of this sub "506. Punishment for criminal intimidation Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt... shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." "34. A intention: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." "114 prosecutions for rape In a Prosecution for rape under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) of sub section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume 8. 376(2)(g) IPC. 376(2)(g) IPC. Explanation 1 appended to the said provision makes it clear 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 12 Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of im either description for a term of less than ten years. Explanation 1. - Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rap within the meaning of this sub-section." 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt... shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention: When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." 114-A Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecutions for rape: In a Prosecution for rape under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) of sub section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume The principal charge against the appellants is under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Explanation 1 appended to the said provision makes it clear Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than ten years. Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, each of the persons shall be deemed to have committed gang rape section." 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation: Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt... shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." cts done by several persons in furtherance of common When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone." A Presumption as to absence of consent in certain In a Prosecution for rape under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did not consent, the court shall presume that she did not consent." The principal charge against the appellants is under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Explanation 1 appended to the said provision makes it clear Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be prisonment of Where a woman is raped by one or more in a group of persons acting in furtherance of their common intention, e Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt... shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to cts done by several persons in furtherance of common When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that A Presumption as to absence of consent in certain In a Prosecution for rape under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause section (2) of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and such woman states in her evidence before the court that she did The principal charge against the appellants is under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Explanation 1 appended to the said provision makes it clear PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 that where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group acting in furtherance of their common intention, each member of the group shall be deemed to have committed the offence of gang rape irrespective of whether he himself committed the act of sexual intercourse. Thus, in order to sustain a conviction under Section 376( to establish not only the commission of rape but also that the accused were acting conjointly in furtherance of their common intention. Once these essential ingredients stand established, every participant incurs equa criminal liability by virtue of the statutory deeming fiction contained in the provision. 9. Section 375 IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, that where the prosecutrix is below sixteen consent, constitutes rape and the question of consent becomes wholly immaterial. The Explanation appended to Section 375 IPC further provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the s the offence of rape. Section 114 statutory presumption as to the absence of consent in a prosecution for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC where sexual intercourse by the accused proved and the prosecutrix states in her evidence that she did not consent. However, if the prosecution succeeds in proving that the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date of the occurrence, the question of consent would not arise for c 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 13 that where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group furtherance of their common intention, each member of the group shall be deemed to have committed the offence of gang rape irrespective of whether he himself committed the act of sexual intercourse. Thus, in order to sustain a conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the prosecution is required to establish not only the commission of rape but also that the accused were acting conjointly in furtherance of their common intention. Once these essential ingredients stand established, every participant incurs equa criminal liability by virtue of the statutory deeming fiction contained in the It is equally well settled, and is evident from clause Sixthly of Section 375 IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, that where the prosecutrix is below sixteen years of age, sexual intercourse with her, with or without her consent, constitutes rape and the question of consent becomes wholly immaterial. The Explanation appended to Section 375 IPC further provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the s the offence of rape. Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act also raises a statutory presumption as to the absence of consent in a prosecution for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC where sexual intercourse by the accused proved and the prosecutrix states in her evidence that she did not consent. However, if the prosecution succeeds in proving that the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date of the occurrence, the question of consent would not arise for consideration at all. that where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group furtherance of their common intention, each member of the group shall be deemed to have committed the offence of gang rape irrespective of whether he himself committed the act of sexual intercourse. Thus, in order to 2)(g) IPC, the prosecution is required to establish not only the commission of rape but also that the accused were acting conjointly in furtherance of their common intention. Once these essential ingredients stand established, every participant incurs equal criminal liability by virtue of the statutory deeming fiction contained in the It is equally well settled, and is evident from clause Sixthly of Section 375 IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, that where the prosecutrix is years of age, sexual intercourse with her, with or without her consent, constitutes rape and the question of consent becomes wholly immaterial. The Explanation appended to Section 375 IPC further provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to A of the Indian Evidence Act also raises a statutory presumption as to the absence of consent in a prosecution for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the prosecutrix states in her evidence that she did not consent. However, if the prosecution succeeds in proving that the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date of the occurrence, the question of onsideration at all. that where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group furtherance of their common intention, each member of the group shall be deemed to have committed the offence of gang rape irrespective of whether he himself committed the act of sexual intercourse. Thus, in order to 2)(g) IPC, the prosecution is required to establish not only the commission of rape but also that the accused were acting conjointly in furtherance of their common intention. Once these l criminal liability by virtue of the statutory deeming fiction contained in the It is equally well settled, and is evident from clause Sixthly of Section 375 IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, that where the prosecutrix is years of age, sexual intercourse with her, with or without her consent, constitutes rape and the question of consent becomes wholly immaterial. The Explanation appended to Section 375 IPC further provides exual intercourse necessary to A of the Indian Evidence Act also raises a statutory presumption as to the absence of consent in a prosecution for gang is proved and the prosecutrix states in her evidence that she did not consent. However, if the prosecution succeeds in proving that the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date of the occurrence, the question of PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 10. rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the questions that arise for determination are: (i) whether the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of the occurrence; (ii) whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that rape was committed upon the prosecutrix; (iii) whether the identity and participation of the present appellants in the commission of the offence st (iv) whether the deficiencies pointed out by the defence, including the delay in lodging the First Information Report, the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, the absence of injuries, the non grouping/comparison tests and the alleged lapses in the investigation, are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. These questions shall now be considered seriatim. 11. prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date of the occurrence. To establish her age, the prosecution examined PW Headmaster, Government School, who proved the relevant school record, including the certificate the prosecutrix is 25.04.1989. Since the occurrence took place on 13.10.2002, she was about 13 years and six months of age on the date of the occurrence. 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 14 In the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the questions that arise for determination are: whether the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of the occurrence; whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that rape was committed upon the prosecutrix; whether the identity and participation of the present appellants in the commission of the offence stand established beyond reasonable doubt; and whether the deficiencies pointed out by the defence, including the delay in lodging the First Information Report, the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, the absence of injuries, the non grouping/comparison tests and the alleged lapses in the investigation, are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. These questions shall now be considered seriatim. The first question that falls for considerati prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date of the occurrence. To establish her age, the prosecution examined PW Headmaster, Government School, who proved the relevant school record, including the certificate (Ex. PR). As per the said record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 25.04.1989. Since the occurrence took place on 13.10.2002, she was about 13 years and six months of age on the date of the In the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the questions whether the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date of whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that rape whether the identity and participation of the present appellants in the and established beyond reasonable doubt; and whether the deficiencies pointed out by the defence, including the delay in lodging the First Information Report, the alleged discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, the absence of injuries, the non-conduct of grouping/comparison tests and the alleged lapses in the investigation, are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. These The first question that falls for consideration is whether the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date of the occurrence. To establish her age, the prosecution examined PW-13 Pritpal Singh, Headmaster, Government School, who proved the relevant school record, (Ex. PR). As per the said record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 25.04.1989. Since the occurrence took place on 13.10.2002, she was about 13 years and six months of age on the date of the In the backdrop of the aforesaid statutory provisions and the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the questions age on the date of whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that rape whether the identity and participation of the present appellants in the and established beyond reasonable doubt; and whether the deficiencies pointed out by the defence, including the delay in lodging the First Information Report, the alleged discrepancies in duct of grouping/comparison tests and the alleged lapses in the investigation, are sufficient to create a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case. These on is whether the prosecutrix was below sixteen years of age on the date of the occurrence. To 13 Pritpal Singh, Headmaster, Government School, who proved the relevant school record, (Ex. PR). As per the said record, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 25.04.1989. Since the occurrence took place on 13.10.2002, she was about 13 years and six months of age on the date of the PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 11.1 has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix in accordance with law, as neither her birth certificate was produced nor were her parents examined to prove her date of birth. The submission, however, does not merit acceptance. It is by now well settled that an entry relating to the date of birth maintained in the ordinary course in the school admission register is a relevant piece of evidence and, once duly proved by the custodian of the record, carries considerable evidentiary value. decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2013) 7 SCC 263, “20. On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed under section Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as under : 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 15 Learned Amicus Curiae vehemently argued has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix in accordance with law, as neither her birth certificate was produced nor were her parents examined to prove her date of birth. The submission, however, does not merit acceptance. now well settled that an entry relating to the date of birth maintained in the ordinary course in the school admission register is a relevant piece of evidence and, once duly proved by the custodian of the record, carries considerable evidentiary value. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 263, wherein it was held as under: “20. On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only needs to make a reference to Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed under section 68(1) of the Juvenile Jus Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as under : "12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or a Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. Learned Amicus Curiae vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix in accordance with law, as neither her birth certificate was produced nor were her parents examined to prove her date of birth. The submission, however, does not merit acceptance. now well settled that an entry relating to the date of birth maintained in the ordinary course in the school admission register is a relevant piece of evidence and, once duly proved by the custodian of the record, carries eliance in this regard is placed upon the Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, wherein it was held as under: “20. On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed (1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as 12. Procedure to be followed in determination of Age - (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with law, the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of the application for that purpose. that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix in accordance with law, as neither her birth certificate was produced nor were her parents examined to prove her date of birth. The submission, however, does not merit acceptance. now well settled that an entry relating to the date of birth maintained in the ordinary course in the school admission register is a relevant piece of evidence and, once duly proved by the custodian of the record, carries eliance in this regard is placed upon the Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana, “20. On the issue of determination of age of a minor, one only Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 2007 Rules). The aforestated 2007 Rules have been framed tice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Rule 12 referred to hereinabove reads as (1) In every case concerning a child or a juvenile in conflict with s the case may be the Committee referred to in rule 19 of these rules shall determine the age of such juvenile or child or a juvenile in conflict with law within a period of thirty days from the date of making of PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 16 (2) The court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in conflict with law, prima facie appearance or documents, if available, observation home or in jail. (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by seeking evidence by obtaining - (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; and in the absence whereof; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; (iii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by ourt or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in prima facie on the basis of physical appearance or documents, if available, and send him to the (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by - (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a play school) first attended; and in the absence whereof; te given by a corporation or a municipal (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the enile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by ourt or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall decide the juvenility or otherwise of the juvenile or the child or as the case may be the juvenile in on the basis of physical and send him to the (3) In every case concerning a child or juvenile in conflict with law, the age determination inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee by (a) (i) the matriculation or equivalent certificates, if available; (ii) the date of birth certificate from the school (other than a te given by a corporation or a municipal (b) and only in the absence of either (i), (ii) or (iii) of clause (a) above, the medical opinion will be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the enile or child. In case exact assessment of the age cannot be done, the Court or the Board or, as the case may be, the Committee, for the reasons to be recorded by them, may, if considered necessary, give benefit to the child or juvenile by PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 17 considering his/her age on lower side within the margin of one year. and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in respect of his age and either of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating th declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is required, inter alia, in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub rule (3) of this rule. /her age on lower side within the margin of one and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in ther of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such child or the juvenile in conflict with law. (4) If the age of a juvenile or child or the juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, on the basis of any of the conclusive proof specified in sub-rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the Committee shall in writing pass an order stating the age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be given to such juvenile or the person concerned. (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the certificate or any other documentary proof referred to in sub- /her age on lower side within the margin of one and, while passing orders in such case shall, after taking into consideration such evidence as may be available, or the medical opinion, as the case may be, record a finding in ther of the evidence specified in any of the clauses (a)(i), (ii), (iii) or in the absence whereof, clause (b) shall be the conclusive proof of the age as regards such juvenile in conflict with law is found to be below 18 years on the date of offence, rule (3), the court or the Board or as the case may be the e age and declaring the status of juvenility or otherwise, for the purpose of the Act and these rules and a copy of the order shall be (5) Save and except where, further inquiry or otherwise is in terms of section 7A, section 64 of the Act and these rules, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the court or the Board after examining and obtaining the - PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime. For, any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the age of the prosecutrix VW conclusively, has been expressed in sub extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated o determine the age of a minor. matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 18 (6) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the sentence under the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law." Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age of a child in conflict with law, we are of the view that statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime. For, any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of crime. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the age of the prosecutrix VW-PW6. The manner of determining age conclusively, has been expressed in sub extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is ascertained, by adopting the first available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent clause. The highest rated option available, would conclusively determine the age of a minor. In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is ) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the r the Act for passing appropriate order in the interest of the juvenile in conflict with law." Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age we are of the view that the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even for a child who is a victim of crime. For, in our view, there is hardly any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of in our considered opinion, it would be just and appropriate to apply Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules, to determine the PW6. The manner of determining age conclusively, has been expressed in sub-rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent ption available, would conclusively In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is ) The provisions contained in this rule shall also apply to those disposed off cases, where the status of juvenility has not been determined in accordance with the provisions contained rule(3) and the Act, requiring dispensation of the r the Act for passing appropriate order in the Even though Rule 12 is strictly applicable only to determine the age the aforesaid statutory provision should be the basis for determining age, even hardly any difference in so far as the issue of minority is concerned, between a child in conflict with law, and a child who is a victim of would be just and 2007 Rules, to determine the PW6. The manner of determining age rule (3) of Rule 12 extracted above. Under the aforesaid provision, the age of a child is available basis, out of a number of options postulated in Rule 12(3). If, in the scheme of options under Rule 12(3), an option is expressed in a preceding clause, it has overriding effect over an option expressed in a subsequent ption available, would conclusively In the scheme of Rule 12(3), matriculation (or equivalent) certificate of the concerned child, is PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 the highest rated option other evidence can certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therei is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet aga certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absenc that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion.” 11.2 and duly proved the entry recording the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 25.04.1989. Nothing has been elicited in his cross material been brought on record, to sugge manipulated or fabricated or was made with a view to lending support to the prosecution case. Merely because the birth certificate was not produced or the parents of the prosecutrix were not examined would not, by itself, render 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 19 the highest rated option. In case, the said certificate is available, no other evidence can be relied upon. certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therei is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material is to be relied upon. Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet aga certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absenc that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion.” In the present case, PW-13 produced the original school record and duly proved the entry recording the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 25.04.1989. Nothing has been elicited in his cross material been brought on record, to sugge manipulated or fabricated or was made with a view to lending support to the prosecution case. Merely because the birth certificate was not produced or the parents of the prosecutrix were not examined would not, by itself, render . In case, the said certificate is available, no be relied upon. Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an entry of date of birth is available, the date of birth depicted therein is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat. Yet again, if such a certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the age of the child. It is only in the absence of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned child, on the basis of medical opinion.” …..emphasis supplied 13 produced the original school record and duly proved the entry recording the date of birth of the prosecutrix as 25.04.1989. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination, nor has any material been brought on record, to suggest that the said entry was manipulated or fabricated or was made with a view to lending support to the prosecution case. Merely because the birth certificate was not produced or the parents of the prosecutrix were not examined would not, by itself, render . In case, the said certificate is available, no Only in the absence of the said certificate, Rule 12(3), envisages consideration of the date of birth entered, in the school first attended by the child. In case such an n is liable to be treated as final and conclusive, and no other material Only in the absence of such entry, Rule 12(3) postulates reliance on a birth certificate issued by a corporation or in, if such a certificate is available, then no other material whatsoever is to be taken into consideration, for determining the age of the child concerned, as the said certificate would conclusively determine the e of any of the aforesaid, that Rule 12(3) postulates the determination of age of the concerned …..emphasis supplied 13 produced the original school record and duly proved the entry recording the date of birth of the prosecutrix as examination, nor has any st that the said entry was manipulated or fabricated or was made with a view to lending support to the prosecution case. Merely because the birth certificate was not produced or the parents of the prosecutrix were not examined would not, by itself, render PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 the duly proved school record unreliable, particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 11.3 variation in radiological assessment, the prosecutrix could have been abov sixteen years of age is devoid of merit. It is well settled that a radiological examination furnishes only an approximate estimate of age and cannot override reliable documentary evidence. In the present case, the prosecution duly proved the school recor doubt upon its authenticity or correctness. Consequently, there is no justification for discarding the age recorded therein merely because the medical opinion indicates an estimated age range. The testimony Dr. Jagjivan Lal, Radiologist, who assessed the prosecutrix's age to be between 15 and 16 years on radiological examination, further reinforces this conclusion. Although, in his cross radiological assessment is approximately one and a half years on either side, such qualification does not detract from the evidentiary value of the duly proved school record. On the contrary, the radiological opinion broadly corroborates in the school register and lends further assurance to the prosecution case. 11.4. prosecution has successfully established that the prosecutrix was about 13 years and six month sixteen years of age. Consequently, in view of clause Sixthly of Section 375 IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, the question of her consent is rendered 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 20 the duly proved school record unreliable, particularly in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The contention that, after allowing the permissible margin of variation in radiological assessment, the prosecutrix could have been abov sixteen years of age is devoid of merit. It is well settled that a radiological examination furnishes only an approximate estimate of age and cannot override reliable documentary evidence. In the present case, the prosecution duly proved the school record, and there is no material on record to cast any doubt upon its authenticity or correctness. Consequently, there is no justification for discarding the age recorded therein merely because the medical opinion indicates an estimated age range. The testimony Dr. Jagjivan Lal, Radiologist, who assessed the prosecutrix's age to be between 15 and 16 years on radiological examination, further reinforces this conclusion. Although, in his cross-examination, he acknowledged that radiological assessment is only an estimate and may carry a variation of approximately one and a half years on either side, such qualification does not detract from the evidentiary value of the duly proved school record. On the contrary, the radiological opinion broadly corroborates in the school register and lends further assurance to the prosecution case. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has successfully established that the prosecutrix was about 13 years and six months old on the date of the occurrence and was, thus, below sixteen years of age. Consequently, in view of clause Sixthly of Section 375 IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, the question of her consent is rendered the duly proved school record unreliable, particularly in view of the law laid The contention that, after allowing the permissible margin of variation in radiological assessment, the prosecutrix could have been above sixteen years of age is devoid of merit. It is well settled that a radiological examination furnishes only an approximate estimate of age and cannot override reliable documentary evidence. In the present case, the prosecution d, and there is no material on record to cast any doubt upon its authenticity or correctness. Consequently, there is no justification for discarding the age recorded therein merely because the medical opinion indicates an estimated age range. The testimony of PW-10, Dr. Jagjivan Lal, Radiologist, who assessed the prosecutrix's age to be between 15 and 16 years on radiological examination, further reinforces this examination, he acknowledged that only an estimate and may carry a variation of approximately one and a half years on either side, such qualification does not detract from the evidentiary value of the duly proved school record. On the contrary, the radiological opinion broadly corroborates the age recorded in the school register and lends further assurance to the prosecution case. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has successfully established that the prosecutrix was about 13 s old on the date of the occurrence and was, thus, below sixteen years of age. Consequently, in view of clause Sixthly of Section 375 IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, the question of her consent is rendered the duly proved school record unreliable, particularly in view of the law laid The contention that, after allowing the permissible margin of e sixteen years of age is devoid of merit. It is well settled that a radiological examination furnishes only an approximate estimate of age and cannot override reliable documentary evidence. In the present case, the prosecution d, and there is no material on record to cast any doubt upon its authenticity or correctness. Consequently, there is no justification for discarding the age recorded therein merely because the 10, Dr. Jagjivan Lal, Radiologist, who assessed the prosecutrix's age to be between 15 and 16 years on radiological examination, further reinforces this examination, he acknowledged that only an estimate and may carry a variation of approximately one and a half years on either side, such qualification does not detract from the evidentiary value of the duly proved school record. On the age recorded This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has successfully established that the prosecutrix was about 13 s old on the date of the occurrence and was, thus, below sixteen years of age. Consequently, in view of clause Sixthly of Section 375 IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, the question of her consent is rendered PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 wholly immaterial. Even otherwise, it is no prosecutrix had voluntarily consented to the alleged acts. 12. prosecution has succeeded in proving that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape. On this aspect, the p prosecutrix, the medical evidence and the report of the Chemical Examiner. 12.1. account of the occurrence. She deposed that after she was forc the adjoining paddy fields, co rape upon her and was thereafter followed by appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha. Her testimony on this material aspect has remained consistent and inspires confidence. 12.2. corroboration from the medical as well as the scientific evidence. PW Ratinder Dhillon, who medically examined the prosecutrix on 14.10.2002, proved the medico introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs. The blood kameez and underwear of the prosecutrix were taken into possession and vaginal swabs were obtained and sealed for chemical examination. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PB), human semen was detected on the vaginal swabs as well as on the clothes of the prosecutrix. PW Ratinder Dhillon further opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 21 wholly immaterial. Even otherwise, it is no prosecutrix had voluntarily consented to the alleged acts. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape. On this aspect, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, the medical evidence and the report of the Chemical Examiner. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has given a clear, cogent and consistent account of the occurrence. She deposed that after she was forc the adjoining paddy fields, co-accused Manjit Singh @ Laddi committed rape upon her and was thereafter followed by appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha. Her testimony on this material aspect has remained consistent and inspires confidence. The ocular version of the prosecutrix finds substantial corroboration from the medical as well as the scientific evidence. PW Dhillon, who medically examined the prosecutrix on 14.10.2002, proved the medico-legal report (Ex. PG). The doc introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs. The blood kameez and underwear of the prosecutrix were taken into possession and vaginal swabs were obtained and sealed for chemical examination. As per of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PB), human semen was detected on the vaginal swabs as well as on the clothes of the prosecutrix. PW Dhillon further opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. wholly immaterial. Even otherwise, it is not the defence case that the prosecutrix had voluntarily consented to the alleged acts. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the prosecutrix was subjected to rosecution has relied upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, the medical evidence and the report of the Chemical Examiner. 1) has given a clear, cogent and consistent account of the occurrence. She deposed that after she was forcibly taken to accused Manjit Singh @ Laddi committed rape upon her and was thereafter followed by appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha. Her testimony on this material aspect has remained consistent and The ocular version of the prosecutrix finds substantial corroboration from the medical as well as the scientific evidence. PW-8 Dr. Dhillon, who medically examined the prosecutrix on 14.10.2002, legal report (Ex. PG). The doctor noticed blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs. The blood-stained salwar, kameez and underwear of the prosecutrix were taken into possession and vaginal swabs were obtained and sealed for chemical examination. As per of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PB), human semen was detected on the vaginal swabs as well as on the clothes of the prosecutrix. PW-8 Dr. Dhillon further opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse t the defence case that the The next question that falls for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the prosecutrix was subjected to rosecution has relied upon the testimony of the prosecutrix, the medical evidence and the report of the Chemical Examiner. 1) has given a clear, cogent and consistent ibly taken to accused Manjit Singh @ Laddi committed rape upon her and was thereafter followed by appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha. Her testimony on this material aspect has remained consistent and The ocular version of the prosecutrix finds substantial 8 Dr. Dhillon, who medically examined the prosecutrix on 14.10.2002, tor noticed blood over the stained salwar, kameez and underwear of the prosecutrix were taken into possession and vaginal swabs were obtained and sealed for chemical examination. As per of the Chemical Examiner (Ex. PB), human semen was detected 8 Dr. Dhillon further opined that the possibility of sexual intercourse PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 12.3 offence of rape is not established as there was neither rupture of the hymen nor any laceration on the person of the prosecutrix does not merit acceptance. Explanation to Section 375 IPC, as it stood at the rel makes it abundantly clear that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Consequently, rupture of the hymen or the presence of injuries on the genitalia is not an indispensable requirement the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nath, (1994) 6 SCC 29; not necessary that there should be complete emission of semen and rupture of hymen. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: “8. It may here be noticed that Section Code defines rape and the explana follows : Explanation intercourse necessary to the offence of rape." From the explanation reproduced above it is distinctly clear that ingredients which are essential for p accomplishment of the act with force and resistance. To constitute the offence of rape neither Section the explanation attached thereto require t necessarily be. complete penetration of the penis into the private 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 22 The contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the offence of rape is not established as there was neither rupture of the hymen nor any laceration on the person of the prosecutrix does not merit acceptance. Explanation to Section 375 IPC, as it stood at the rel makes it abundantly clear that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Consequently, rupture of the hymen or the presence of injuries on the genitalia is not an indispensable requirement for proving the offence. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (1994) 6 SCC 29; wherein it was held thatto constitute offence of rape not necessary that there should be complete emission of semen and rupture of hymen. The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: “8. It may here be noticed that Section Code defines rape and the explana follows :- Explanation :- Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape." From the explanation reproduced above it is distinctly clear that ingredients which are essential for p accomplishment of the act with force and resistance. To constitute the offence of rape neither Section the explanation attached thereto require t necessarily be. complete penetration of the penis into the private n raised on behalf of the appellants that the offence of rape is not established as there was neither rupture of the hymen nor any laceration on the person of the prosecutrix does not merit acceptance. Explanation to Section 375 IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, makes it abundantly clear that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Consequently, rupture of the hymen or the presence of injuries on the genitalia is not an indispensable Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Babul wherein it was held thatto constitute offence of rape not necessary that there should be complete penetration of penis and emission of semen and rupture of hymen. The relevant paragraph is “8. It may here be noticed that Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code defines rape and the explanation to Section 375 reads as Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape." From the explanation reproduced above it is distinctly clear that ingredients which are essential for proving a charge of rape are the accomplishment of the act with force and resistance. To constitute the offence of rape neither Section 375 of Indian Penal Code nor the explanation attached thereto require that there should necessarily be. complete penetration of the penis into the private n raised on behalf of the appellants that the offence of rape is not established as there was neither rupture of the hymen nor any laceration on the person of the prosecutrix does not merit evant time, makes it abundantly clear that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Consequently, rupture of the hymen or the presence of injuries on the genitalia is not an indispensable Reliance in this regard is placed upon State of U.P. v. Babul wherein it was held thatto constitute offence of rape penetration of penis and emission of semen and rupture of hymen. The relevant paragraph is of the Indian Penal tion to Section 375 reads as Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual From the explanation reproduced above it is distinctly clear that roving a charge of rape are the accomplishment of the act with force and resistance. To constitute of Indian Penal Code nor hat there should necessarily be. complete penetration of the penis into the private PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 part of the victim/prosecutrix. In other words to constitute the offence of rape it is not at all necessary that there should be complete penetration of the male organ with rupture of hymen. Even partial or slightest penetration of the make organ within the labia majore or the vulva or pudenda with or without any emission of semen or even an, attempt at penetration into the private part of the victim wo purpose of Sections so it is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape ev without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. But in the present case before us as noticed above there is more than enough evidence positively showing that there was sexual activity on (he victim And she was subjected to sexu without which she would not have sustained injuries of the nature found on her private part by the doctor who examined her.” 12.4 Dhillon was not specifically questioned in her cross whether the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact or ruptured. In the absence of any such evidence, no inference favourable to the defence can be drawn on that score, particularly in vie 12.5 opinion expressed by PW of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, is merely tentative and, therefore, incapable o 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 23 part of the victim/prosecutrix. In other words to constitute the offence of rape it is not at all necessary that there should be complete penetration of the male organ with rupture of hymen. Even partial or slightest penetration of the make organ within the labia majore or the vulva or pudenda with or without any emission of semen or even an, attempt at penetration into the private part of the victim wo purpose of Sections 375 and 376 of Indian Penal Code That being so it is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape ev without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. But in the present case before us as noticed above there is more than enough evidence positively showing that there was sexual activity on (he victim And she was subjected to sexu without which she would not have sustained injuries of the nature found on her private part by the doctor who examined her.” Adverting to the facts of the present case, PW Dhillon was not specifically questioned in her cross whether the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact or ruptured. In the absence of any such evidence, no inference favourable to the defence can be drawn on that score, particularly in view of the settled law. Equally devoid of merit is the contention that the medical opinion expressed by PW-8 Dr. Ratinder Dhillon of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, is merely tentative and, therefore, incapable of supporting the prosecution case. It is trite that part of the victim/prosecutrix. In other words to constitute the offence of rape it is not at all necessary that there should be complete penetration of the male organ with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Even partial or slightest penetration of the make organ within the labia majore or the vulva or pudenda with or without any emission of semen or even an, attempt at penetration into the private part of the victim would be quite enough for the of Indian Penal Code That being so it is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape even without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. But in the present case before us as noticed above there is more than enough evidence positively showing that there was sexual activity on (he victim And she was subjected to sexual assault without which she would not have sustained injuries of the nature found on her private part by the doctor who examined her.” Adverting to the facts of the present case, PW-8 Dr. Ratinder Dhillon was not specifically questioned in her cross-examination as to whether the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact or ruptured. In the absence of any such evidence, no inference favourable to the defence can be drawn w of the settled law. Equally devoid of merit is the contention that the medical Dhillon, namely that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, is merely tentative and, f supporting the prosecution case. It is trite that part of the victim/prosecutrix. In other words to constitute the offence of rape it is not at all necessary that there should be emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Even partial or slightest penetration of the make organ within the labia majore or the vulva or pudenda with or without any emission of semen or even an, attempt at penetration uld be quite enough for the of Indian Penal Code That being en without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. But in the present case before us as noticed above there is more than enough evidence positively showing that there was sexual al assault without which she would not have sustained injuries of the nature Ratinder examination as to whether the hymen of the prosecutrix was intact or ruptured. In the absence of any such evidence, no inference favourable to the defence can be drawn Equally devoid of merit is the contention that the medical , namely that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out, is merely tentative and, f supporting the prosecution case. It is trite that PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 medical evidence in a prosecution for rape is essentially corroborative in nature and the substantive evidence is the testimony of the prosecutrix. Where the testimony of the prosecutrix is found to be re trustworthy, the medical evidence only lends assurance to her version. In the present case, the medical findings of blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, coupled with the detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs a corroborate the version of the prosecutrix. The guarded expression employed by the doctor while rendering the opinion cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be construed to dilute the ev value of the medical and scientific evidence. 12.6 clothes of the prosecutrix, though the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the paddy fields, is of little consequence. At best, it constitutes a minor circumstance which is wholly insuffi cogent and convincing ocular, medical and scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution. 12.7 successfully established that the prosecutrix was subjected to rap 13. the appellants in the commission of the offence. Upon a careful appraisal of the evidence on record, this Court finds no reason to doubt the identity of the appellants. The prosecutri PA), on the basis whereof the formal First Information Report came to be 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 24 medical evidence in a prosecution for rape is essentially corroborative in nature and the substantive evidence is the testimony of the prosecutrix. Where the testimony of the prosecutrix is found to be re trustworthy, the medical evidence only lends assurance to her version. In the present case, the medical findings of blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, coupled with the detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix, substantially corroborate the version of the prosecutrix. The guarded expression employed by the doctor while rendering the opinion cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be construed to dilute the ev value of the medical and scientific evidence. The further submission that no mud stains were found on the clothes of the prosecutrix, though the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the paddy fields, is of little consequence. At best, it constitutes a minor circumstance which is wholly insufficient to outweigh the otherwise cogent and convincing ocular, medical and scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has successfully established that the prosecutrix was subjected to rap The next question pertains to the identity and participation of the appellants in the commission of the offence. Upon a careful appraisal of the evidence on record, this Court finds no reason to doubt the identity of the appellants. The prosecutrix named all the three accused in her statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the formal First Information Report came to be medical evidence in a prosecution for rape is essentially corroborative in nature and the substantive evidence is the testimony of the prosecutrix. Where the testimony of the prosecutrix is found to be reliable and trustworthy, the medical evidence only lends assurance to her version. In the present case, the medical findings of blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, coupled with the detection of human semen on nd the clothes of the prosecutrix, substantially corroborate the version of the prosecutrix. The guarded expression employed by the doctor while rendering the opinion cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be construed to dilute the evidentiary The further submission that no mud stains were found on the clothes of the prosecutrix, though the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the paddy fields, is of little consequence. At best, it constitutes a cient to outweigh the otherwise cogent and convincing ocular, medical and scientific evidence adduced by This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has successfully established that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape. The next question pertains to the identity and participation of the appellants in the commission of the offence. Upon a careful appraisal of the evidence on record, this Court finds no reason to doubt the identity of the x named all the three accused in her statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the formal First Information Report came to be medical evidence in a prosecution for rape is essentially corroborative in nature and the substantive evidence is the testimony of the prosecutrix. liable and trustworthy, the medical evidence only lends assurance to her version. In the present case, the medical findings of blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, coupled with the detection of human semen on nd the clothes of the prosecutrix, substantially corroborate the version of the prosecutrix. The guarded expression employed by the doctor while rendering the opinion cannot, in the facts and identiary The further submission that no mud stains were found on the clothes of the prosecutrix, though the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in the paddy fields, is of little consequence. At best, it constitutes a cient to outweigh the otherwise cogent and convincing ocular, medical and scientific evidence adduced by This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has The next question pertains to the identity and participation of the appellants in the commission of the offence. Upon a careful appraisal of the evidence on record, this Court finds no reason to doubt the identity of the x named all the three accused in her statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the formal First Information Report came to be PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 registered. She consistently reiterated their names as well as the role attributed to each of them while deposing before the Court. stated that the accused were known to her even prior to the occurrence. Her version, in this regard, finds corroboration from the testimony of PW Gopal Dass. 13.1 a stray answer elicited during the cross contend that she did not know the accused prior to the occurrence. The said contention does not merit acceptance. A reading of the testimony of the prosecutrix as a whole leaves no manner of d maintained that the accused were known to her from before. She, in fact, specifically denied the suggestion put to her that she did not know the names of the accused. A stray line in the cross “I did not know the accused persons before the occurrence” cannot extend any benefit to the accused. prosecutrix, it reveals that the learned defence counsel was putting suggestions to the prosecutrix and before thi naked eyes that the words “it is incorrect to” has been crossed. answer, apparently elicited during the course of an extensive cross examination of a child witness aged about thirteen and a half years, cannot be torn out of context and elevated to the status of a material contradiction so as to discredit her otherwise cogent and consistent testimony. It is a settled principle of appreciation of evidence that the testimony of a witness is required to be read as a whol 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 25 registered. She consistently reiterated their names as well as the role attributed to each of them while deposing before the Court. stated that the accused were known to her even prior to the occurrence. Her version, in this regard, finds corroboration from the testimony of PW Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Amicus Curiae on wer elicited during the cross-examination of the prosecutrix to contend that she did not know the accused prior to the occurrence. The said contention does not merit acceptance. A reading of the testimony of the prosecutrix as a whole leaves no manner of d maintained that the accused were known to her from before. She, in fact, specifically denied the suggestion put to her that she did not know the names of the accused. A stray line in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix that “I did not know the accused persons before the occurrence” cannot extend any benefit to the accused. Even as per the cross prosecutrix, it reveals that the learned defence counsel was putting suggestions to the prosecutrix and before thi naked eyes that the words “it is incorrect to” has been crossed. answer, apparently elicited during the course of an extensive cross examination of a child witness aged about thirteen and a half years, cannot n out of context and elevated to the status of a material contradiction so as to discredit her otherwise cogent and consistent testimony. It is a settled principle of appreciation of evidence that the testimony of a witness is required to be read as a whole and not in isolated fragments. registered. She consistently reiterated their names as well as the role attributed to each of them while deposing before the Court. She categorically stated that the accused were known to her even prior to the occurrence. Her version, in this regard, finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-2 Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Amicus Curiae on examination of the prosecutrix to contend that she did not know the accused prior to the occurrence. The said contention does not merit acceptance. A reading of the testimony of the prosecutrix as a whole leaves no manner of doubt that she consistently maintained that the accused were known to her from before. She, in fact, specifically denied the suggestion put to her that she did not know the names examination of the prosecutrix that “I did not know the accused persons before the occurrence” cannot extend Even as per the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, it reveals that the learned defence counsel was putting suggestions to the prosecutrix and before this stray line one can see with naked eyes that the words “it is incorrect to” has been crossed. A solitary answer, apparently elicited during the course of an extensive cross- examination of a child witness aged about thirteen and a half years, cannot n out of context and elevated to the status of a material contradiction so as to discredit her otherwise cogent and consistent testimony. It is a settled principle of appreciation of evidence that the testimony of a witness is e and not in isolated fragments. registered. She consistently reiterated their names as well as the role She categorically stated that the accused were known to her even prior to the occurrence. Her 2 Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Amicus Curiae on examination of the prosecutrix to contend that she did not know the accused prior to the occurrence. The said contention does not merit acceptance. A reading of the testimony of the oubt that she consistently maintained that the accused were known to her from before. She, in fact, specifically denied the suggestion put to her that she did not know the names examination of the prosecutrix that “I did not know the accused persons before the occurrence” cannot extend examination of the prosecutrix, it reveals that the learned defence counsel was putting s stray line one can see with A solitary - examination of a child witness aged about thirteen and a half years, cannot n out of context and elevated to the status of a material contradiction so as to discredit her otherwise cogent and consistent testimony. It is a settled principle of appreciation of evidence that the testimony of a witness is e and not in isolated fragments. PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 13.2 known to the prosecutrix and had been named by her at the earliest opportunity in her statement leading to the registration of the FIR, the question of holdi object of a test identification parade is to test the memory and veracity of a witness in identifying an unknown person. Where the accused are already known to the witness, the holding of such This principle stands authoritatively recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MalkhanSingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 331 unnecessary where the accused are previously known to the witness. The aforesaid principle applies with full force to the facts of the present case. The occurrence took place in broad daylight and the prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe the accus from before. The absence of a test identification parade, therefore, does not, in any manner, dent the prosecution case. 14. Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh attributed to him and, therefore, his conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC is legally unsustainable. The submission, though attractive at first blush, does not withstand judicial scrutiny. 14.1 relevant time, incorporates a legal fiction by providing that where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group acting in furtherance of 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 26 Once it stands established that the accused were previously known to the prosecutrix and had been named by her at the earliest opportunity in her statement leading to the registration of the FIR, the question of holding a test identification parade pales into insignificance. The object of a test identification parade is to test the memory and veracity of a witness in identifying an unknown person. Where the accused are already known to the witness, the holding of such a parade serves no useful purpose. This principle stands authoritatively recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme MalkhanSingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2003(2) Apex Court Judgments 331, wherein it has been held that a test identification parade is cessary where the accused are previously known to the witness. The aforesaid principle applies with full force to the facts of the present case. The occurrence took place in broad daylight and the prosecutrix had sufficient opportunity to observe the accused, who were, in any case, known to her from before. The absence of a test identification parade, therefore, does not, in any manner, dent the prosecution case. The principal contention advanced on behalf of appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh is that no allegation of rape has been attributed to him and, therefore, his conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC is legally unsustainable. The submission, though attractive at first blush, does not withstand judicial scrutiny. Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, incorporates a legal fiction by providing that where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group acting in furtherance of Once it stands established that the accused were previously known to the prosecutrix and had been named by her at the earliest opportunity in her statement leading to the registration of the FIR, the ng a test identification parade pales into insignificance. The object of a test identification parade is to test the memory and veracity of a witness in identifying an unknown person. Where the accused are already a parade serves no useful purpose. This principle stands authoritatively recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme MalkhanSingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2003(2) Apex Court , wherein it has been held that a test identification parade is cessary where the accused are previously known to the witness. The aforesaid principle applies with full force to the facts of the present case. The occurrence took place in broad daylight and the prosecutrix had sufficient ed, who were, in any case, known to her from before. The absence of a test identification parade, therefore, does not, The principal contention advanced on behalf of appellant is that no allegation of rape has been attributed to him and, therefore, his conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC is legally unsustainable. The submission, though attractive at first blush, ction 376(2)(g) IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, incorporates a legal fiction by providing that where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group acting in furtherance of Once it stands established that the accused were previously known to the prosecutrix and had been named by her at the earliest opportunity in her statement leading to the registration of the FIR, the ng a test identification parade pales into insignificance. The object of a test identification parade is to test the memory and veracity of a witness in identifying an unknown person. Where the accused are already a parade serves no useful purpose. This principle stands authoritatively recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme MalkhanSingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2003(2) Apex Court , wherein it has been held that a test identification parade is cessary where the accused are previously known to the witness. The aforesaid principle applies with full force to the facts of the present case. The occurrence took place in broad daylight and the prosecutrix had sufficient ed, who were, in any case, known to her from before. The absence of a test identification parade, therefore, does not, The principal contention advanced on behalf of appellant is that no allegation of rape has been attributed to him and, therefore, his conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC is legally unsustainable. The submission, though attractive at first blush, ction 376(2)(g) IPC, as it stood at the relevant time, incorporates a legal fiction by providing that where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group acting in furtherance of PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 their common intention, each member of the group shall be deem committed the offence of gang rape irrespective of whether he himself committed the act of sexual intercourse. The emphasis, therefore, is not on the individual act of penetration but on the participation of each member of the group in the commi common intention. 14.2 both in her statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information Report came to be registered, and in appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh caught hold of her arms while co-accused Manjit Singh @ Laddi and appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha committed rape upon her. The act attributed to the appellant was neither passive nor incidental. On the contrary, by restraining the prosecutrix, he facilitated the commission of the offence and prevented her from offering resistance. His participation, therefore, clearly establishes that he acted in furtherance accused and is consequently liable by virtue of the deeming fiction contained in Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC. 14.3 by contending that whil Rajinder Singh had caught hold of her arms, PW the prosecutrix had told him that the appellant had caught hold of her head. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said discrepa affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix has remained 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 27 their common intention, each member of the group shall be deem committed the offence of gang rape irrespective of whether he himself committed the act of sexual intercourse. The emphasis, therefore, is not on the individual act of penetration but on the participation of each member of the group in the commission of the offence while acting in furtherance of the common intention. In the present case, the prosecutrix has consistently deposed, both in her statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information Report came to be registered, and in her deposition before the Court, that appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh caught hold of her arms while accused Manjit Singh @ Laddi and appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha committed rape upon her. The act attributed to the appellant was neither passive nor incidental. On the contrary, by restraining the prosecutrix, he facilitated the commission of the offence and prevented her from offering resistance. His participation, therefore, clearly establishes that he acted in furtherance of the common intention shared with the other accused and is consequently liable by virtue of the deeming fiction contained in Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC. Learned Amicus Curiae has sought to point out a discrepancy by contending that while the prosecutrix stated that Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh had caught hold of her arms, PW the prosecutrix had told him that the appellant had caught hold of her head. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said discrepa affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix has remained their common intention, each member of the group shall be deemed to have committed the offence of gang rape irrespective of whether he himself committed the act of sexual intercourse. The emphasis, therefore, is not on the individual act of penetration but on the participation of each member of ssion of the offence while acting in furtherance of the In the present case, the prosecutrix has consistently deposed, both in her statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information her deposition before the Court, that appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh caught hold of her arms while accused Manjit Singh @ Laddi and appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha committed rape upon her. The act attributed to the appellant-Baljinder Singh was neither passive nor incidental. On the contrary, by restraining the prosecutrix, he facilitated the commission of the offence and prevented her from offering resistance. His participation, therefore, clearly establishes that of the common intention shared with the other accused and is consequently liable by virtue of the deeming fiction contained Learned Amicus Curiae has sought to point out a discrepancy e the prosecutrix stated that Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh had caught hold of her arms, PW-2 Gopal Dass deposed that the prosecutrix had told him that the appellant had caught hold of her head. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said discrepancy is too trivial to affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix has remained ed to have committed the offence of gang rape irrespective of whether he himself committed the act of sexual intercourse. The emphasis, therefore, is not on the individual act of penetration but on the participation of each member of ssion of the offence while acting in furtherance of the In the present case, the prosecutrix has consistently deposed, both in her statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information her deposition before the Court, that appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh caught hold of her arms while accused Manjit Singh @ Laddi and appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha gh was neither passive nor incidental. On the contrary, by restraining the prosecutrix, he facilitated the commission of the offence and prevented her from offering resistance. His participation, therefore, clearly establishes that of the common intention shared with the other accused and is consequently liable by virtue of the deeming fiction contained Learned Amicus Curiae has sought to point out a discrepancy e the prosecutrix stated that Baljinder Singh @ 2 Gopal Dass deposed that the prosecutrix had told him that the appellant had caught hold of her head. ncy is too trivial to affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix has remained PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 consistent in her statement (Ex. PA) as well as in her deposition before the Court regarding the role attributed to the appellant. If there is any variation in the testimony of PW had disclosed to him immediately after the occurrence, the same cannot enure to the benefit of the appellant. Whether the appellant restrained the prosecutrix by holding her arms or he the prosecution case, namely, that he actively overpowered and restrained her while the offence was being committed by the co discrepancies are but natural in the narration of a traumatic incident passage of time and, unless they strike at the root of the prosecution case, cannot be made a ground to discard otherwise reliable and trustworthy evidence. 15. absence of external inju persons of the accused probabilises the defence version also deserves to be rejected. It is well settled that the absence of external injuries is not, by itself, determinative of the question whether rape was not expected that every rape victim should have injuries on her body to prove her case. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 574. The relevant pa “16. ……………… The further contention of the counsel to rule out rape by the accused, that the prosecutrix is habitual of sexual intercourse and there were no signs of recent forcible sexual 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 28 consistent in her statement (Ex. PA) as well as in her deposition before the Court regarding the role attributed to the appellant. If there is any variation n the testimony of PW-2 Gopal Dass while narrating what the prosecutrix had disclosed to him immediately after the occurrence, the same cannot enure to the benefit of the appellant. Whether the appellant restrained the prosecutrix by holding her arms or her head does not alter the substance of the prosecution case, namely, that he actively overpowered and restrained her while the offence was being committed by the co discrepancies are but natural in the narration of a traumatic incident passage of time and, unless they strike at the root of the prosecution case, cannot be made a ground to discard otherwise reliable and trustworthy The contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the absence of external injuries on the person of the prosecutrix or on the persons of the accused probabilises the defence version also deserves to be rejected. It is well settled that the absence of external injuries is not, by itself, determinative of the question whether rape was not expected that every rape victim should have injuries on her body to prove her case. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Krishan v. State of Haryana, 2014 (13) SCC . The relevant paragraph is reproduced below: “16. ……………… The further contention of the counsel to rule out rape by the accused, that the prosecutrix is habitual of sexual intercourse and there were no signs of recent forcible sexual consistent in her statement (Ex. PA) as well as in her deposition before the Court regarding the role attributed to the appellant. If there is any variation while narrating what the prosecutrix had disclosed to him immediately after the occurrence, the same cannot enure to the benefit of the appellant. Whether the appellant restrained the r head does not alter the substance of the prosecution case, namely, that he actively overpowered and restrained her while the offence was being committed by the co-accused. Such minor discrepancies are but natural in the narration of a traumatic incident after the passage of time and, unless they strike at the root of the prosecution case, cannot be made a ground to discard otherwise reliable and trustworthy The contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the ries on the person of the prosecutrix or on the persons of the accused probabilises the defence version also deserves to be rejected. It is well settled that the absence of external injuries is not, by itself, determinative of the question whether rape was committed and it is not expected that every rape victim should have injuries on her body to Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of the Krishan v. State of Haryana, 2014 (13) SCC ragraph is reproduced below: “16. ……………… The further contention of the counsel to rule out rape by the accused, that the prosecutrix is habitual of sexual intercourse and there were no signs of recent forcible sexual consistent in her statement (Ex. PA) as well as in her deposition before the Court regarding the role attributed to the appellant. If there is any variation while narrating what the prosecutrix had disclosed to him immediately after the occurrence, the same cannot enure to the benefit of the appellant. Whether the appellant restrained the r head does not alter the substance of the prosecution case, namely, that he actively overpowered and restrained accused. Such minor after the passage of time and, unless they strike at the root of the prosecution case, cannot be made a ground to discard otherwise reliable and trustworthy The contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the ries on the person of the prosecutrix or on the persons of the accused probabilises the defence version also deserves to be rejected. It is well settled that the absence of external injuries is not, by committed and it is not expected that every rape victim should have injuries on her body to Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of the Krishan v. State of Haryana, 2014 (13) SCC “16. ……………… The further contention of the counsel to rule out rape by the accused, that the prosecutrix is habitual of sexual intercourse and there were no signs of recent forcible sexual PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 intercourse or injuries on her body, expected that every rape victim should have injuries on her body to prove her case. The findings of the medical experts clearly established that there was a rape committed against the victim.” and circumstances of each case and cannot constitute the sole basis for accepting or rejecting the prosecution case. 15.1 years of age. According to her the accused, one of whom gagged her mouth while the others restrained her, thereby rendering her incapable of offering any effective resistance. In such circumstances, the absence of external injuries on her perso unnatural nor sufficient to cast a doubt on the prosecution case. 15.2 blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, while the report of the Chemical Examiner co the vaginal swabs and on the clothes of the prosecutrix. These medical and scientific findings lend substantial corroboration to the ocular version of the prosecutrix. 15.3 person of the prosecutrix or on the persons of the accused does not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, militate against the prosecution case nor does it justify an inference that the prosecutrix was not subjected to rape. 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 29 intercourse or injuries on her body, expected that every rape victim should have injuries on her body to prove her case. The findings of the medical experts clearly established that there was a rape committed against the victim.” Thus, the presence or absence of and circumstances of each case and cannot constitute the sole basis for accepting or rejecting the prosecution case. In the present case, the prosecutrix was a child of about 13½ years of age. According to her consistent version, she was overpowered by the accused, one of whom gagged her mouth while the others restrained her, thereby rendering her incapable of offering any effective resistance. In such circumstances, the absence of external injuries on her perso unnatural nor sufficient to cast a doubt on the prosecution case. On the contrary, the medical evidence reveals the presence of blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, while the report of the Chemical Examiner confirms the presence of human semen on the vaginal swabs and on the clothes of the prosecutrix. These medical and scientific findings lend substantial corroboration to the ocular version of the Viewed thus, the mere absence of external in person of the prosecutrix or on the persons of the accused does not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, militate against the prosecution case nor does it justify an inference that the prosecutrix was not subjected to intercourse or injuries on her body, also cannot help. It is not expected that every rape victim should have injuries on her body to prove her case. The findings of the medical experts clearly established that there was a rape committed against the victim.” Thus, the presence or absence of injuries depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot constitute the sole basis for In the present case, the prosecutrix was a child of about 13½ consistent version, she was overpowered by the accused, one of whom gagged her mouth while the others restrained her, thereby rendering her incapable of offering any effective resistance. In such circumstances, the absence of external injuries on her person is neither unnatural nor sufficient to cast a doubt on the prosecution case. On the contrary, the medical evidence reveals the presence of blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, while the nfirms the presence of human semen on the vaginal swabs and on the clothes of the prosecutrix. These medical and scientific findings lend substantial corroboration to the ocular version of the Viewed thus, the mere absence of external injuries on the person of the prosecutrix or on the persons of the accused does not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, militate against the prosecution case nor does it justify an inference that the prosecutrix was not subjected to also cannot help. It is not expected that every rape victim should have injuries on her body to prove her case. The findings of the medical experts clearly injuries depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot constitute the sole basis for In the present case, the prosecutrix was a child of about 13½ consistent version, she was overpowered by the accused, one of whom gagged her mouth while the others restrained her, thereby rendering her incapable of offering any effective resistance. In such n is neither On the contrary, the medical evidence reveals the presence of blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, while the nfirms the presence of human semen on the vaginal swabs and on the clothes of the prosecutrix. These medical and scientific findings lend substantial corroboration to the ocular version of the juries on the person of the prosecutrix or on the persons of the accused does not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, militate against the prosecution case nor does it justify an inference that the prosecutrix was not subjected to PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 16. registration of the First Information Report is equally devoid of merit. The delay, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, stands satisfactorily explained. PW they proceeded towards the police station. However, on the way, they were intercepted by the parents of appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, who prevented them from proceeding further. It was only thereafter that t reached the police station, where the statement (Ex. PA) of the prosecutrix came to be recorded, on the basis whereof the formal First Information Report was registered. The explanation furnished by PW appears to be natural, probable and h examination. 16.1 in lodging the First Information Report is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution case. The significance of the delay depends upon th circumstances of each case. Unless it is shown that the delay has afforded sufficient opportunity for deliberation, embellishment or false implication, no adverse inference can be drawn merely on account of the First Information Report not havi no material has been brought on record to suggest that the intervening period was utilised for concocting a false version or falsely implicating the appellants. On the contrary, the explanation offered by t both plausible and convincing. Consequently, the delay of about six hours in the registration of the First Information Report does not, in any manner, detract from the credibility of the prosecution case. The discrepancies sought 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 30 The contention regarding the delay of about six hours in the registration of the First Information Report is equally devoid of merit. The delay, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, stands satisfactorily explained. PW-2 Gopal Dass has deposed that after rescuing the prosecutrix, they proceeded towards the police station. However, on the way, they were intercepted by the parents of appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, who prevented them from proceeding further. It was only thereafter that t reached the police station, where the statement (Ex. PA) of the prosecutrix came to be recorded, on the basis whereof the formal First Information Report was registered. The explanation furnished by PW appears to be natural, probable and has remained unshaken in his cross examination. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that mere delay in lodging the First Information Report is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution case. The significance of the delay depends upon th circumstances of each case. Unless it is shown that the delay has afforded sufficient opportunity for deliberation, embellishment or false implication, no adverse inference can be drawn merely on account of the First Information Report not having been registered promptly. In the present case, no material has been brought on record to suggest that the intervening period was utilised for concocting a false version or falsely implicating the appellants. On the contrary, the explanation offered by t both plausible and convincing. Consequently, the delay of about six hours in the registration of the First Information Report does not, in any manner, detract from the credibility of the prosecution case. The discrepancies sought The contention regarding the delay of about six hours in the registration of the First Information Report is equally devoid of merit. The delay, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, stands satisfactorily posed that after rescuing the prosecutrix, they proceeded towards the police station. However, on the way, they were intercepted by the parents of appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, who prevented them from proceeding further. It was only thereafter that they reached the police station, where the statement (Ex. PA) of the prosecutrix came to be recorded, on the basis whereof the formal First Information Report was registered. The explanation furnished by PW-2 Gopal Dass as remained unshaken in his cross- It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that mere delay in lodging the First Information Report is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution case. The significance of the delay depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Unless it is shown that the delay has afforded sufficient opportunity for deliberation, embellishment or false implication, no adverse inference can be drawn merely on account of the First ng been registered promptly. In the present case, no material has been brought on record to suggest that the intervening period was utilised for concocting a false version or falsely implicating the appellants. On the contrary, the explanation offered by the prosecution is both plausible and convincing. Consequently, the delay of about six hours in the registration of the First Information Report does not, in any manner, detract from the credibility of the prosecution case. The discrepancies sought The contention regarding the delay of about six hours in the registration of the First Information Report is equally devoid of merit. The delay, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, stands satisfactorily posed that after rescuing the prosecutrix, they proceeded towards the police station. However, on the way, they were intercepted by the parents of appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, who hey reached the police station, where the statement (Ex. PA) of the prosecutrix came to be recorded, on the basis whereof the formal First Information Gopal Dass - It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that mere delay in lodging the First Information Report is not, by itself, fatal to the e facts and circumstances of each case. Unless it is shown that the delay has afforded sufficient opportunity for deliberation, embellishment or false implication, no adverse inference can be drawn merely on account of the First ng been registered promptly. In the present case, no material has been brought on record to suggest that the intervening period was utilised for concocting a false version or falsely implicating the he prosecution is both plausible and convincing. Consequently, the delay of about six hours in the registration of the First Information Report does not, in any manner, detract from the credibility of the prosecution case. The discrepancies sought PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 to be highlighted by the learned Amicus Curiae are also of no consequence. It has been contended that while the prosecutrix (PW PW-2 Gopal Dass, reached the spot during the occurrence, on reaching the place of occurrence, weeping condition. Likewise, it has been pointed out that the prosecutrix stated that the Satsang was being held at Nirankari Bhawan, Dina Nagar, whereas the said Bhawan is, in fact, situated at some distance from Dina Nagar. 16.2 discrepancies are too trivial to affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix was a child of about 13½ years of age who had been subjected to a traumatic sexual assault. cannot be expected to possess the powers of observation or recollection of a mature person or to narrate every minute detail of the occurrence with photographic precision. Her impression regarding the exact stage at which her uncle reached the spot is wholly understandable, particularly when she has categorically deposed that she lost consciousness after the occurrence. The discrepancy, therefore, neither undermines her credibility nor casts any doubt upon the prosecution vers 16.3 knowledge of the geographical or municipal location of the Nirankari Bhawan. The mere fact that she referred to the Satsang as having been held at Nirankari Bhawan, Dina Nagar, tho 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 31 ghlighted by the learned Amicus Curiae are also of no consequence. It has been contended that while the prosecutrix (PW 2 Gopal Dass, reached the spot during the occurrence, on reaching the place of occurrence, he found the prosecutrix alone in a weeping condition. Likewise, it has been pointed out that the prosecutrix stated that the Satsang was being held at Nirankari Bhawan, Dina Nagar, whereas the said Bhawan is, in fact, situated at some distance from Dina In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid discrepancies are too trivial to affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix was a child of about 13½ years of age who had been subjected to a traumatic sexual assault. A victim in such circumstances cannot be expected to possess the powers of observation or recollection of a mature person or to narrate every minute detail of the occurrence with photographic precision. Her impression regarding the exact stage at which uncle reached the spot is wholly understandable, particularly when she has categorically deposed that she lost consciousness after the occurrence. The discrepancy, therefore, neither undermines her credibility nor casts any doubt upon the prosecution version. Similarly, the prosecutrix cannot be expected to possess precise knowledge of the geographical or municipal location of the Nirankari Bhawan. The mere fact that she referred to the Satsang as having been held at Nirankari Bhawan, Dina Nagar, though the Bhawan may actually be ghlighted by the learned Amicus Curiae are also of no consequence. It has been contended that while the prosecutrix (PW-1) stated that her uncle, 2 Gopal Dass, reached the spot during the occurrence, who deposed that he found the prosecutrix alone in a weeping condition. Likewise, it has been pointed out that the prosecutrix stated that the Satsang was being held at Nirankari Bhawan, Dina Nagar, whereas the said Bhawan is, in fact, situated at some distance from Dina In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid discrepancies are too trivial to affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix was a child of about 13½ years of age who had been A victim in such circumstances cannot be expected to possess the powers of observation or recollection of a mature person or to narrate every minute detail of the occurrence with photographic precision. Her impression regarding the exact stage at which uncle reached the spot is wholly understandable, particularly when she has categorically deposed that she lost consciousness after the occurrence. The discrepancy, therefore, neither undermines her credibility nor casts any Similarly, the prosecutrix cannot be expected to possess precise knowledge of the geographical or municipal location of the Nirankari Bhawan. The mere fact that she referred to the Satsang as having been held ugh the Bhawan may actually be ghlighted by the learned Amicus Curiae are also of no consequence. 1) stated that her uncle, deposed that he found the prosecutrix alone in a weeping condition. Likewise, it has been pointed out that the prosecutrix stated that the Satsang was being held at Nirankari Bhawan, Dina Nagar, whereas the said Bhawan is, in fact, situated at some distance from Dina In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid discrepancies are too trivial to affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The prosecutrix was a child of about 13½ years of age who had been A victim in such circumstances cannot be expected to possess the powers of observation or recollection of a mature person or to narrate every minute detail of the occurrence with photographic precision. Her impression regarding the exact stage at which uncle reached the spot is wholly understandable, particularly when she has categorically deposed that she lost consciousness after the occurrence. The discrepancy, therefore, neither undermines her credibility nor casts any Similarly, the prosecutrix cannot be expected to possess precise knowledge of the geographical or municipal location of the Nirankari Bhawan. The mere fact that she referred to the Satsang as having been held ugh the Bhawan may actually be PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 situated at some distance therefrom, is wholly inconsequential and has no bearing whatsoever on the core prosecution case. 16.4 insignificant case, are but natural and rather lend assurance to the truthfulness of the prosecution version, as they rule out the possibility of a tutored or meticulously fabricated account. The Court is c of the evidence and not with trivial variations which are bound to occur in the testimony of truthful witnesses. 17. merely because he is the real uncle of the prosec Relationship with the victim does not, by itself, render a witness unworthy of credit. A related witness cannot be equated with an interested witness. If the testimony of such a witness is otherwise found to be natural, cogent a trustworthy, there is no legal impediment to placing reliance thereon. The testimony of PW conformity with the version of the prosecutrix on all material particulars. Merely because he is related to otherwise reliable testimony. 18. detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon, as no grou conducted to connect the semen with the accused, is equally misconceived. Reliance has been placed on the decision in 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 32 situated at some distance therefrom, is wholly inconsequential and has no bearing whatsoever on the core prosecution case. It is well settled that minor discrepancies, normal variations and insignificant inconsistencies, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case, are but natural and rather lend assurance to the truthfulness of the prosecution version, as they rule out the possibility of a tutored or meticulously fabricated account. The Court is c of the evidence and not with trivial variations which are bound to occur in the testimony of truthful witnesses. The contention that PW-2 Gopal Dass is an interested witness merely because he is the real uncle of the prosec Relationship with the victim does not, by itself, render a witness unworthy of credit. A related witness cannot be equated with an interested witness. If the testimony of such a witness is otherwise found to be natural, cogent a trustworthy, there is no legal impediment to placing reliance thereon. The testimony of PW-2 Gopal Dass inspires confidence and is in substantial conformity with the version of the prosecutrix on all material particulars. Merely because he is related to the prosecutrix is no ground to discard his otherwise reliable testimony. The submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that the detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon, as no grou conducted to connect the semen with the accused, is equally misconceived. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Mohd. Salim (supra) situated at some distance therefrom, is wholly inconsequential and has no bearing whatsoever on the core prosecution case. It is well settled that minor discrepancies, normal variations and inconsistencies, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case, are but natural and rather lend assurance to the truthfulness of the prosecution version, as they rule out the possibility of a tutored or meticulously fabricated account. The Court is concerned with the substance of the evidence and not with trivial variations which are bound to occur in 2 Gopal Dass is an interested witness merely because he is the real uncle of the prosecutrix is equally untenable. Relationship with the victim does not, by itself, render a witness unworthy of credit. A related witness cannot be equated with an interested witness. If the testimony of such a witness is otherwise found to be natural, cogent and trustworthy, there is no legal impediment to placing reliance thereon. The inspires confidence and is in substantial conformity with the version of the prosecutrix on all material particulars. the prosecutrix is no ground to discard his The submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that the detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix cannot be relied upon, as no grouping or comparison test was conducted to connect the semen with the accused, is equally misconceived. Mohd. Salim (supra) to contend situated at some distance therefrom, is wholly inconsequential and has no It is well settled that minor discrepancies, normal variations and inconsistencies, which do not go to the root of the prosecution case, are but natural and rather lend assurance to the truthfulness of the prosecution version, as they rule out the possibility of a tutored or oncerned with the substance of the evidence and not with trivial variations which are bound to occur in 2 Gopal Dass is an interested witness utrix is equally untenable. Relationship with the victim does not, by itself, render a witness unworthy of credit. A related witness cannot be equated with an interested witness. If the nd trustworthy, there is no legal impediment to placing reliance thereon. The inspires confidence and is in substantial conformity with the version of the prosecutrix on all material particulars. the prosecutrix is no ground to discard his The submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that the detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the ping or comparison test was conducted to connect the semen with the accused, is equally misconceived. to contend PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 that, in the absence of such comparison, the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the source of the semen. The said reliance is, however, misplaced. 18.1 evidentiary value of blood group analysis for the purpose of identifying the source of semen and held blood group on the clothes of the accused and the prosecutrix could not conclusively establish that the semen belonged to the same individual, as the blood group in question was common to a large section of The said decision turned on the limited probative value of blood grouping as a tool of identification and has no application to the facts of the present case. 18.2 established by in her very first statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information Report came to be registered. She consistently reiterated their names and the role attributed to each of them du the Court and categorically stated that they were known to her even prior to the occurrence. Thus, the identity of the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by trustworthy direct evidence. In such circumstances, the absence of a grouping or comparison test of the semen does not, in any manner, weaken the prosecution case. The detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix constitutes independent scientific evidence corroborating the a does not lose its evidentiary significance merely because the source of the 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 33 that, in the absence of such comparison, the prosecution has failed to h the identity of the source of the semen. The said reliance is, however, misplaced. In Mohd. Salim (supra), the Court was dealing with the limited evidentiary value of blood group analysis for the purpose of identifying the source of semen and held that the mere detection of semen of a particular blood group on the clothes of the accused and the prosecutrix could not conclusively establish that the semen belonged to the same individual, as the blood group in question was common to a large section of The said decision turned on the limited probative value of blood grouping as a tool of identification and has no application to the facts of the present case. Here, the identity and participation of the appellants stand established by direct ocular evidence. The prosecutrix named all the accused in her very first statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information Report came to be registered. She consistently reiterated their names and the role attributed to each of them du the Court and categorically stated that they were known to her even prior to the occurrence. Thus, the identity of the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by trustworthy direct evidence. In such circumstances, the absence of a grouping or comparison test of the semen does not, in any manner, weaken the prosecution case. The detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix constitutes independent scientific evidence corroborating the allegation of sexual intercourse and does not lose its evidentiary significance merely because the source of the that, in the absence of such comparison, the prosecution has failed to h the identity of the source of the semen. The said reliance is, , the Court was dealing with the limited evidentiary value of blood group analysis for the purpose of identifying the that the mere detection of semen of a particular blood group on the clothes of the accused and the prosecutrix could not conclusively establish that the semen belonged to the same individual, as the blood group in question was common to a large section of the population. The said decision turned on the limited probative value of blood grouping as a tool of identification and has no application to the facts of the present case. Here, the identity and participation of the appellants stand direct ocular evidence. The prosecutrix named all the accused in her very first statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information Report came to be registered. She consistently reiterated their names and the role attributed to each of them during her deposition before the Court and categorically stated that they were known to her even prior to the occurrence. Thus, the identity of the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by trustworthy direct evidence. In such circumstances, the absence of a grouping or comparison test of the semen does not, in any manner, weaken the prosecution case. The detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix constitutes independent llegation of sexual intercourse and does not lose its evidentiary significance merely because the source of the that, in the absence of such comparison, the prosecution has failed to h the identity of the source of the semen. The said reliance is, , the Court was dealing with the limited evidentiary value of blood group analysis for the purpose of identifying the that the mere detection of semen of a particular blood group on the clothes of the accused and the prosecutrix could not conclusively establish that the semen belonged to the same individual, as the the population. The said decision turned on the limited probative value of blood grouping as a tool of identification and has no application to the facts of the present case. Here, the identity and participation of the appellants stand direct ocular evidence. The prosecutrix named all the accused in her very first statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information Report came to be registered. She consistently reiterated their ring her deposition before the Court and categorically stated that they were known to her even prior to the occurrence. Thus, the identity of the appellants has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by trustworthy direct evidence. In such circumstances, the absence of a grouping or comparison test of the semen does not, in any manner, weaken the prosecution case. The detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix constitutes independent llegation of sexual intercourse and does not lose its evidentiary significance merely because the source of the PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 semen was not scientifically compared with that of the accused. 18.3 Lakha upon Dr. Ratinder devoid of merit. As already noticed, medical evidence in a prosecution for rape is essentially corroborative in nature, whereas the substantive evidence is that of the prosecutrix. The opini Dhillon that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out cannot be read in isolation. When considered in conjunction with the objective medical findings of blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, the detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix, and the cogent and trustworthy testimony of the prosecutrix, the medical opinion lends assurance to, rather than detracts from, the prosecution case. The Curiae was rendered in an altogether different factual context and, therefore, does not advance the case of the appellants. 19. pertains to certain alleged that the names of the accused do not find mention in the rough site plan (Ex. PE), the application seeking medical examination (Ex. PF) and the recovery memo (Ex. PH). It has further been argued that no i associated with the investigation, although the occurrence is alleged to have taken place during the daytime near a public road. 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 34 semen was not scientifically compared with that of the accused. The reliance placed on behalf of appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha upon Dr. A.G. Bhagat (supra) to contend that the opinion of PW Dhillon is confined merely to the possibility of rape is equally devoid of merit. As already noticed, medical evidence in a prosecution for rape is essentially corroborative in nature, whereas the substantive evidence is that of the prosecutrix. The opinion expressed by PW Dhillon that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out cannot be read in isolation. When considered in conjunction with the objective medical findings of blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, the detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix, and the cogent and trustworthy testimony of the prosecutrix, the medical opinion lends assurance to, rather than detracts from, the prosecution case. The decision relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae was rendered in an altogether different factual context and, therefore, does not advance the case of the appellants. The next submission advanced on behalf of the appellants pertains to certain alleged lapses in the investigation. It has been contended that the names of the accused do not find mention in the rough site plan (Ex. PE), the application seeking medical examination (Ex. PF) and the recovery memo (Ex. PH). It has further been argued that no i associated with the investigation, although the occurrence is alleged to have taken place during the daytime near a public road. semen was not scientifically compared with that of the accused. The reliance placed on behalf of appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ to contend that the opinion of PW-8 Dhillon is confined merely to the possibility of rape is equally devoid of merit. As already noticed, medical evidence in a prosecution for rape is essentially corroborative in nature, whereas the substantive evidence on expressed by PW-8 Dr. Ratinder Dhillon that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out cannot be read in isolation. When considered in conjunction with the objective medical findings of blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, the detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix, and the cogent and trustworthy testimony of the prosecutrix, the medical opinion lends assurance to, rather than detracts decision relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae was rendered in an altogether different factual context and, therefore, The next submission advanced on behalf of the appellants lapses in the investigation. It has been contended that the names of the accused do not find mention in the rough site plan (Ex. PE), the application seeking medical examination (Ex. PF) and the recovery memo (Ex. PH). It has further been argued that no independent witness was associated with the investigation, although the occurrence is alleged to have taken place during the daytime near a public road. semen was not scientifically compared with that of the accused. The reliance placed on behalf of appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ 8 Dhillon is confined merely to the possibility of rape is equally devoid of merit. As already noticed, medical evidence in a prosecution for rape is essentially corroborative in nature, whereas the substantive evidence Ratinder Dhillon that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out cannot be read in isolation. When considered in conjunction with the objective medical findings of blood over the introitus and on the inner aspect of both thighs, the detection of human semen on the vaginal swabs and the clothes of the prosecutrix, and the cogent and trustworthy testimony of the prosecutrix, the medical opinion lends assurance to, rather than detracts decision relied upon by the learned Amicus Curiae was rendered in an altogether different factual context and, therefore, The next submission advanced on behalf of the appellants lapses in the investigation. It has been contended that the names of the accused do not find mention in the rough site plan (Ex. PE), the application seeking medical examination (Ex. PF) and the recovery ndependent witness was associated with the investigation, although the occurrence is alleged to have PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 19.1 omission to mention the names of the accuse prepared during the course of investigation is, at best, an irregularity which does not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. Such documents are essentially prepared for the purpose for which they are intended and are no expected to contain every detail of the prosecution case. The identity of the appellants does not rest upon these documents but stands established by the substantive evidence adduced during the trial. It is well settled that the substantive evidence is t documents prepared during the course of investigation. Consequently, the omission to mention the names of the appellants in the aforesaid documents cannot outweigh the otherwise cogent and reliable evidenc prosecution. 19.2 liable to be discarded for want of examination of an independent witness. It is not the prosecution case that the occurrence was witnessed by any independent p committed in the fields and the prosecutrix was rescued by PW Dass on hearing her cries. In the absence of any evidence to show that an independent witness had actually witnessed the oc inference can be drawn merely because no such witness was examined during the trial. 19.3 the part of the investigating agency cannot, by themselves, constitute a 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 35 The aforesaid submissions do not merit acceptance. The omission to mention the names of the accuse prepared during the course of investigation is, at best, an irregularity which does not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. Such documents are essentially prepared for the purpose for which they are intended and are no expected to contain every detail of the prosecution case. The identity of the appellants does not rest upon these documents but stands established by the substantive evidence adduced during the trial. It is well settled that the substantive evidence is the testimony recorded before the Court and not the documents prepared during the course of investigation. Consequently, the omission to mention the names of the appellants in the aforesaid documents cannot outweigh the otherwise cogent and reliable evidenc Equally untenable is the contention that the prosecution case is liable to be discarded for want of examination of an independent witness. It is not the prosecution case that the occurrence was witnessed by any independent person. Rather, the prosecution version is that the offence was committed in the fields and the prosecutrix was rescued by PW Dass on hearing her cries. In the absence of any evidence to show that an independent witness had actually witnessed the oc inference can be drawn merely because no such witness was examined during the trial. The law is equally well settled that deficiencies or omissions on the part of the investigating agency cannot, by themselves, constitute a The aforesaid submissions do not merit acceptance. The omission to mention the names of the accused in some of the documents prepared during the course of investigation is, at best, an irregularity which does not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. Such documents are essentially prepared for the purpose for which they are intended and are not expected to contain every detail of the prosecution case. The identity of the appellants does not rest upon these documents but stands established by the substantive evidence adduced during the trial. It is well settled that the he testimony recorded before the Court and not the documents prepared during the course of investigation. Consequently, the omission to mention the names of the appellants in the aforesaid documents cannot outweigh the otherwise cogent and reliable evidence led by the Equally untenable is the contention that the prosecution case is liable to be discarded for want of examination of an independent witness. It is not the prosecution case that the occurrence was witnessed by any erson. Rather, the prosecution version is that the offence was committed in the fields and the prosecutrix was rescued by PW-2 Gopal Dass on hearing her cries. In the absence of any evidence to show that an independent witness had actually witnessed the occurrence, no adverse inference can be drawn merely because no such witness was examined The law is equally well settled that deficiencies or omissions on the part of the investigating agency cannot, by themselves, constitute a The aforesaid submissions do not merit acceptance. The d in some of the documents prepared during the course of investigation is, at best, an irregularity which does not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. Such documents are t expected to contain every detail of the prosecution case. The identity of the appellants does not rest upon these documents but stands established by the substantive evidence adduced during the trial. It is well settled that the he testimony recorded before the Court and not the documents prepared during the course of investigation. Consequently, the omission to mention the names of the appellants in the aforesaid documents e led by the Equally untenable is the contention that the prosecution case is liable to be discarded for want of examination of an independent witness. It is not the prosecution case that the occurrence was witnessed by any erson. Rather, the prosecution version is that the offence was 2 Gopal Dass on hearing her cries. In the absence of any evidence to show that an currence, no adverse inference can be drawn merely because no such witness was examined The law is equally well settled that deficiencies or omissions on the part of the investigating agency cannot, by themselves, constitute a PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 ground for discarding an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Unless such lapses are shown to have caused serious prejudice to the accused or to have affected the core of the prosecution version, they do not entitle the accused to an acquittal. The investigatio any omission or irregularity therein cannot eclipse the substantive evidence adduced before the Court. 19.4 case, this Court finds that the alleged la not of such a nature as would undermine the credibility of the prosecution case. The testimony of the prosecutrix has been found to be trustworthy and stands duly corroborated by the medical, scientific and other atte circumstances. The alleged omissions in the investigation neither create any dent in the prosecution version nor cast any reasonable doubt upon the guilt of the appellants. Consequently, no benefit can accrue to the appellants on the strength of the 20. that, since the order summoning Surjit Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was subsequently set aside, the prosecution version regarding the participation of the accused be proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were confined to the question whether sufficient material existed to summon Surjit Singh as an additional accused. The subsequent setting aside of the order summon based on the material pertaining to his alleged involvement alone and 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 36 d for discarding an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Unless such lapses are shown to have caused serious prejudice to the accused or to have affected the core of the prosecution version, they do not entitle the accused to an acquittal. The investigation is only a means to collect evidence, and any omission or irregularity therein cannot eclipse the substantive evidence adduced before the Court. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the alleged lapses pointed out by the appellants are not of such a nature as would undermine the credibility of the prosecution case. The testimony of the prosecutrix has been found to be trustworthy and stands duly corroborated by the medical, scientific and other atte circumstances. The alleged omissions in the investigation neither create any dent in the prosecution version nor cast any reasonable doubt upon the guilt of the appellants. Consequently, no benefit can accrue to the appellants on the strength of the aforesaid submissions. The last submission advanced on behalf of the appellants is that, since the order summoning Surjit Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was subsequently set aside, the prosecution version regarding the participation of the accused becomes doubtful. The contention is devoid of merit. The proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were confined to the question whether sufficient material existed to summon Surjit Singh as an additional accused. The subsequent setting aside of the order summon based on the material pertaining to his alleged involvement alone and d for discarding an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Unless such lapses are shown to have caused serious prejudice to the accused or to have affected the core of the prosecution version, they do not entitle the accused n is only a means to collect evidence, and any omission or irregularity therein cannot eclipse the substantive evidence Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present pses pointed out by the appellants are not of such a nature as would undermine the credibility of the prosecution case. The testimony of the prosecutrix has been found to be trustworthy and stands duly corroborated by the medical, scientific and other attending circumstances. The alleged omissions in the investigation neither create any dent in the prosecution version nor cast any reasonable doubt upon the guilt of the appellants. Consequently, no benefit can accrue to the appellants on The last submission advanced on behalf of the appellants is that, since the order summoning Surjit Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was subsequently set aside, the prosecution version regarding the participation of comes doubtful. The contention is devoid of merit. The proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were confined to the question whether sufficient material existed to summon Surjit Singh as an additional accused. The subsequent setting aside of the order summoning him was based on the material pertaining to his alleged involvement alone and d for discarding an otherwise reliable prosecution case. Unless such lapses are shown to have caused serious prejudice to the accused or to have affected the core of the prosecution version, they do not entitle the accused n is only a means to collect evidence, and any omission or irregularity therein cannot eclipse the substantive evidence Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present pses pointed out by the appellants are not of such a nature as would undermine the credibility of the prosecution case. The testimony of the prosecutrix has been found to be trustworthy and nding circumstances. The alleged omissions in the investigation neither create any dent in the prosecution version nor cast any reasonable doubt upon the guilt of the appellants. Consequently, no benefit can accrue to the appellants on The last submission advanced on behalf of the appellants is that, since the order summoning Surjit Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was subsequently set aside, the prosecution version regarding the participation of comes doubtful. The contention is devoid of merit. The proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C. were confined to the question whether sufficient material existed to summon Surjit Singh as an additional ing him was based on the material pertaining to his alleged involvement alone and PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed to dilute the evidence against the present appellants. 20.1 present appellants in her statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information Report came to be registered, and attributed to each of them a specific and distinct role in the commission of the offence. She reiterated the same version during h on all material particulars. The evidence regarding the participation of the present appellants has, thus, remained unwavering throughout the investigation as well as during the course of trial. 20.2 the strength of the evidence led against them and not on the outcome of the proceedings initiated against another person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The subsequent setting aside of the order sum no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the prosecution case against the present appellants and does not create any dent in the otherwise cogent and reliable evidence establishing their guilt. 21. witnesses. However, on a careful appraisal of their testimonies, this Court finds that the defence evidence does not create any dent in the prosecution case. 21.1 to have taken place, deposed that no such incident had occurred there and that the police had never visited the spot. The said testimony does not 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 37 cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed to dilute the evidence against the present appellants. From the very inception, the prosecutrix consistently named t present appellants in her statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information Report came to be registered, and attributed to each of them a specific and distinct role in the commission of the offence. She reiterated the same version during her deposition before the Court and remained consistent on all material particulars. The evidence regarding the participation of the present appellants has, thus, remained unwavering throughout the investigation as well as during the course of trial. The liability of the present appellants has to be determined on the strength of the evidence led against them and not on the outcome of the proceedings initiated against another person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The subsequent setting aside of the order summoning Surjit Singh, therefore, has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the prosecution case against the present appellants and does not create any dent in the otherwise cogent and reliable evidence establishing their guilt. The appellants, in support of their defence, examined three witnesses. However, on a careful appraisal of their testimonies, this Court finds that the defence evidence does not create any dent in the prosecution DW-1 Joginder Singh, in whose fields the occurrence is to have taken place, deposed that no such incident had occurred there and that the police had never visited the spot. The said testimony does not cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed to dilute the evidence From the very inception, the prosecutrix consistently named the present appellants in her statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information Report came to be registered, and attributed to each of them a specific and distinct role in the commission of the offence. She reiterated the er deposition before the Court and remained consistent on all material particulars. The evidence regarding the participation of the present appellants has, thus, remained unwavering throughout the investigation as well as during the course of trial. The liability of the present appellants has to be determined on the strength of the evidence led against them and not on the outcome of the proceedings initiated against another person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The moning Surjit Singh, therefore, has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the prosecution case against the present appellants and does not create any dent in the otherwise cogent and ort of their defence, examined three witnesses. However, on a careful appraisal of their testimonies, this Court finds that the defence evidence does not create any dent in the prosecution 1 Joginder Singh, in whose fields the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, deposed that no such incident had occurred there and that the police had never visited the spot. The said testimony does not cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed to dilute the evidence he present appellants in her statement (Ex. PA), on the basis whereof the First Information Report came to be registered, and attributed to each of them a specific and distinct role in the commission of the offence. She reiterated the er deposition before the Court and remained consistent on all material particulars. The evidence regarding the participation of the present appellants has, thus, remained unwavering throughout the The liability of the present appellants has to be determined on the strength of the evidence led against them and not on the outcome of the proceedings initiated against another person under Section 319 Cr.P.C. The moning Surjit Singh, therefore, has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the prosecution case against the present appellants and does not create any dent in the otherwise cogent and ort of their defence, examined three witnesses. However, on a careful appraisal of their testimonies, this Court finds that the defence evidence does not create any dent in the prosecution alleged to have taken place, deposed that no such incident had occurred there and that the police had never visited the spot. The said testimony does not PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 advance the case of the defence. Admittedly, DW eyewitness to the occurrenc incident cannot lead to the conclusion that no such occurrence had taken place. Agricultural fields are not expected to remain under the constant occupation or supervision of their owners throughout the day. Lik even if the Investigating Officer did not associate DW during the course of investigation or visit him, the same would, at best, amount to an omission in the investigation and cannot outweigh the otherwise cogent and reliable eviden 21.2 prepared by him. A comparison of Ex. D during the course of investigation reveals that both substantially depict the same place of occurrence. The site plan pr merely contains certain additional details regarding the location and does not contradict the prosecution version on any material particular. Consequently, the testimony of DW 21.3 506 IPC. The submission, however, is without merit. The prosecutrix has categorically deposed that after committing rape, the accused threatened to kill her in case she disclosed the oc testimony has remained consistent and has not been discredited during cross examination. 21.4 transaction by the accused, who were acting in furtherance of their co 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 38 advance the case of the defence. Admittedly, DW eyewitness to the occurrence. The mere fact that he did not witness the incident cannot lead to the conclusion that no such occurrence had taken place. Agricultural fields are not expected to remain under the constant occupation or supervision of their owners throughout the day. Lik even if the Investigating Officer did not associate DW during the course of investigation or visit him, the same would, at best, amount to an omission in the investigation and cannot outweigh the otherwise cogent and reliable evidence adduced by the prosecution. DW-2 Ashwani Tuli, Draftsman, proved the site plan (Ex. D prepared by him. A comparison of Ex. D-1 with the rough site plan prepared during the course of investigation reveals that both substantially depict the same place of occurrence. The site plan pr merely contains certain additional details regarding the location and does not contradict the prosecution version on any material particular. Consequently, the testimony of DW-2 Ashwani Tuli is of no assistance to the defence. The appellants have also assailed their conviction under Section 506 IPC. The submission, however, is without merit. The prosecutrix has categorically deposed that after committing rape, the accused threatened to kill her in case she disclosed the occurrence to anyone. This part of her testimony has remained consistent and has not been discredited during cross examination. The threat was extended during the course of the same transaction by the accused, who were acting in furtherance of their co advance the case of the defence. Admittedly, DW-1 Joginder Singh is not an e. The mere fact that he did not witness the incident cannot lead to the conclusion that no such occurrence had taken place. Agricultural fields are not expected to remain under the constant occupation or supervision of their owners throughout the day. Likewise, even if the Investigating Officer did not associate DW-1 Joginder Singh during the course of investigation or visit him, the same would, at best, amount to an omission in the investigation and cannot outweigh the ce adduced by the prosecution. 2 Ashwani Tuli, Draftsman, proved the site plan (Ex. D-1) 1 with the rough site plan prepared during the course of investigation reveals that both substantially depict the same place of occurrence. The site plan prepared by DW-2 Ashwani Tuli merely contains certain additional details regarding the location and does not contradict the prosecution version on any material particular. Consequently, 2 Ashwani Tuli is of no assistance to the defence. The appellants have also assailed their conviction under Section 506 IPC. The submission, however, is without merit. The prosecutrix has categorically deposed that after committing rape, the accused threatened to currence to anyone. This part of her testimony has remained consistent and has not been discredited during cross- The threat was extended during the course of the same transaction by the accused, who were acting in furtherance of their common 1 Joginder Singh is not an e. The mere fact that he did not witness the incident cannot lead to the conclusion that no such occurrence had taken place. Agricultural fields are not expected to remain under the constant ewise, 1 Joginder Singh during the course of investigation or visit him, the same would, at best, amount to an omission in the investigation and cannot outweigh the ce adduced by the prosecution. 1) 1 with the rough site plan prepared during the course of investigation reveals that both substantially depict the 2 Ashwani Tuli merely contains certain additional details regarding the location and does not contradict the prosecution version on any material particular. Consequently, The appellants have also assailed their conviction under Section 506 IPC. The submission, however, is without merit. The prosecutrix has categorically deposed that after committing rape, the accused threatened to currence to anyone. This part of her - The threat was extended during the course of the same mmon PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 intention. In such circumstances, it is neither necessary nor expected that the prosecution should establish the precise words uttered by each accused individually. Section 34 IPC embodies the principle of joint liability and postulates that where a c furtherance of their common intention, each of them is liable for the entire act as if it had been committed by him alone. 21.5 establishes that the ap common intention throughout the occurrence. The criminal intimidation extended to the prosecutrix immediately after the commission of rape formed an integral part of the same transaction and was evident deter her from disclosing the offence. Consequently, the contention that no specific threat has been attributed to appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh is of no avail. By virtue of Section 34 IPC, both the appellants are equally liable 22. recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against both the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecutrix is wholly reliable, natural and inspires confidence. It stands duly corroborated by the testimony of PW scientific evidence in the form of the rep age of the prosecutrix has also been satisfactorily established to be below sixteen years on the date of the occurrence. The discrepancies and infirmities 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 39 intention. In such circumstances, it is neither necessary nor expected that the prosecution should establish the precise words uttered by each accused individually. Section 34 IPC embodies the principle of joint liability and postulates that where a criminal act is committed by several persons in furtherance of their common intention, each of them is liable for the entire act as if it had been committed by him alone. In the present case, the evidence on record unmistakably establishes that the appellants acted conjointly and in furtherance of their common intention throughout the occurrence. The criminal intimidation extended to the prosecutrix immediately after the commission of rape formed an integral part of the same transaction and was evident deter her from disclosing the offence. Consequently, the contention that no specific threat has been attributed to appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh is of no avail. By virtue of Section 34 IPC, both the appellants are equally liable for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against both the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecutrix is wholly reliable, natural and inspires confidence. It stands duly corroborated by the testimony of PW-2 Gopal Dass, the medical evidence as well as the scientific evidence in the form of the report of the Chemical Examiner. The age of the prosecutrix has also been satisfactorily established to be below sixteen years on the date of the occurrence. The discrepancies and infirmities intention. In such circumstances, it is neither necessary nor expected that the prosecution should establish the precise words uttered by each accused individually. Section 34 IPC embodies the principle of joint liability and riminal act is committed by several persons in furtherance of their common intention, each of them is liable for the entire act as if it had been committed by him alone. In the present case, the evidence on record unmistakably pellants acted conjointly and in furtherance of their common intention throughout the occurrence. The criminal intimidation extended to the prosecutrix immediately after the commission of rape formed an integral part of the same transaction and was evidently intended to deter her from disclosing the offence. Consequently, the contention that no specific threat has been attributed to appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh is of no avail. By virtue of Section 34 IPC, both the appellants are for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC. view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against both the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecutrix is wholly reliable, natural and inspires confidence. It stands duly corroborated by the 2 Gopal Dass, the medical evidence as well as the ort of the Chemical Examiner. The age of the prosecutrix has also been satisfactorily established to be below sixteen years on the date of the occurrence. The discrepancies and infirmities intention. In such circumstances, it is neither necessary nor expected that the prosecution should establish the precise words uttered by each accused individually. Section 34 IPC embodies the principle of joint liability and riminal act is committed by several persons in furtherance of their common intention, each of them is liable for the entire In the present case, the evidence on record unmistakably pellants acted conjointly and in furtherance of their common intention throughout the occurrence. The criminal intimidation extended to the prosecutrix immediately after the commission of rape ly intended to deter her from disclosing the offence. Consequently, the contention that no specific threat has been attributed to appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh is of no avail. By virtue of Section 34 IPC, both the appellants are view of the foregoing discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the s beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecutrix is wholly reliable, natural and inspires confidence. It stands duly corroborated by the 2 Gopal Dass, the medical evidence as well as the ort of the Chemical Examiner. The age of the prosecutrix has also been satisfactorily established to be below sixteen years on the date of the occurrence. The discrepancies and infirmities PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 sought to be projected by the defence are minor and inconsequential not strike at the root of the prosecution case. Likewise, the submissions regarding the delay in the registration of the First Information Report, the absence of external injuries, the non comparison test, the alleged l of the order summoning Surjit Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have, for the reasons already recorded, been found to be devoid of merit. The authorities relied upon on behalf of the appellants are clearly dis and do not advance their case. 23. infirmity either in the appreciation of evidence or in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court warranting interference in the imp conviction or the order of sentence. The conviction of appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and the conviction of appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh by virtue of Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC, as 506 read with Section 34 IPC, are hereby affirmed. 24. Singh @ Rajinder Singh and CRA Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, be judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, are affirmed. 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 40 sought to be projected by the defence are minor and inconsequential not strike at the root of the prosecution case. Likewise, the submissions regarding the delay in the registration of the First Information Report, the absence of external injuries, the non-conduct of semen grouping or comparison test, the alleged lapses in the investigation and the setting aside of the order summoning Surjit Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have, for the reasons already recorded, been found to be devoid of merit. The authorities relied upon on behalf of the appellants are clearly dis and do not advance their case. Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or infirmity either in the appreciation of evidence or in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court warranting interference in the imp conviction or the order of sentence. The conviction of appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and the conviction of appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh by virtue of Explanation 1 to Section 376(2)(g) IPC, as also the conviction of both the appellants under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC, are hereby affirmed. Accordingly, CRA-S-1241-SB- Singh @ Rajinder Singh and CRA-S Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, being devoid of merit, are dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, are affirmed. sought to be projected by the defence are minor and inconsequential and do not strike at the root of the prosecution case. Likewise, the submissions regarding the delay in the registration of the First Information Report, the conduct of semen grouping or apses in the investigation and the setting aside of the order summoning Surjit Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have, for the reasons already recorded, been found to be devoid of merit. The authorities relied upon on behalf of the appellants are clearly distinguishable on facts Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or infirmity either in the appreciation of evidence or in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court warranting interference in the impugned judgment of conviction or the order of sentence. The conviction of appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and the conviction of appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh by virtue of Explanation 1 to Section also the conviction of both the appellants under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC, are hereby affirmed. -2004 preferred by Baljinder S-1373-SB-2004 preferred by ing devoid of merit, are dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, and do not strike at the root of the prosecution case. Likewise, the submissions regarding the delay in the registration of the First Information Report, the conduct of semen grouping or apses in the investigation and the setting aside of the order summoning Surjit Singh under Section 319 Cr.P.C. have, for the reasons already recorded, been found to be devoid of merit. The authorities tinguishable on facts Consequently, this Court finds no illegality, perversity or infirmity either in the appreciation of evidence or in the findings recorded by ugned judgment of conviction or the order of sentence. The conviction of appellant Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and the conviction of appellant Baljinder Singh @ Rajinder Singh by virtue of Explanation 1 to Section also the conviction of both the appellants under Section 2004 preferred by Baljinder 2004 preferred by ing devoid of merit, are dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.04.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CRA-S-1241 & CRA-S-1373 25. State counsel awarded to them. 26. sentence awarded to them, they are not required to surrender. Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand discharged. 27. the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. He shall be paid fee by the High Court Legal Services Authority Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 28. appeal. 30.07.2026 Puneet i) ii) Whether reportable? 1241-SB-2004 1373-SB-2004 41 It has been brought to the notice of this Cou State counsel that both the appellants have already undergone the sentence awarded to them. Since the present appellants have already undergone the sentence awarded to them, they are not required to surrender. Their bail urety bonds shall stand discharged. Before parting, this Court places on record its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. He shall be by the High Court Legal Services Authority Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. A copy of this judgment be placed on the file of the connected (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) Whether speaking/reasoned? ii) Whether reportable? It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned that both the appellants have already undergone the sentence Since the present appellants have already undergone the sentence awarded to them, they are not required to surrender. Their bail urety bonds shall stand discharged. Before parting, this Court places on record its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. He shall be by the High Court Legal Services Authority as per the Rules. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. A copy of this judgment be placed on the file of the connected (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) JUDGE : Yes : Yes by the learned that both the appellants have already undergone the sentence Since the present appellants have already undergone the sentence awarded to them, they are not required to surrender. Their bail Before parting, this Court places on record its appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. He shall be as per the Rules. A copy of this judgment be placed on the file of the connected PUNEET SHARMA 2026.07.30 13.34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment