IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(1) CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

Kuldeep and another

…Appellants

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

(2) CRA-D No.1414-DB of 2014 (O&M)

Amit

…Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

(3) CRA-D No.1584-DB of 2014 (O&M)

Ravinder

…Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

(4) CRR No.4537 of 2017 (O&M)

Vikram @ Vicky

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

Reserved on : 14.10.2025

Pronounced on : 08.12.2025

Uploaded on : 10.12.2025

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -2-

Whether full judgment is pronounced

or operative part thereof: Full Judgment

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Argued by:- Mr. Shekhar Mudgal, Advocate

for the appellants in CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma (Bhana), Advocate

for the appellant in CRA-D No.1414-DB of 2014.

Mr. J.P. Jhangu, Advocate

for the appellant in CRA-D No.1584-DB of 2014.

Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate,

Mr. Vikas, Advocate and

Mr. Manav Sharma, Advocate

for the petitioner in CRR No.4537 of 2017.

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Addl. A.G., Haryana

for the respondent-State.

*****

Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.

All the three afore-captioned Criminal Appeals an d one

Criminal Revision are being taken up together for discussion and

adjudication as these have arisen out of the same FIR bearing No.232 dated

02.08.2013 registered at Police Station Uchana, under Sections 376(D),

376(2)(G) and 506 IPC and Sections 6/14(3) of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short ‘the POCSO Act’).

2. CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 has been preferred by appellants

Kuldeep and Anil and CRA-D No.1414-DB of 2014 has been filed by

appellant Amit whereas CRA-D No.1584-DB of 2014 has been moved by

appellant Ravinder to lay challenge to the judgment dated 19.07.2014 and

order on sentence dated 23.07.2014 handed down by learned Additional

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -3-

Sessions Judge, Jind (for short ‘the trial Court’), whereby they have been

held guilty for committing the offences punishable under Sections 376-D

and 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 6 and 14(3) of the POCSO

Act and appellants Ravinder and Amit have, additionally, been convicted for

the commission of offences under Sections 363 and 366-A read with Section

34 IPC and they (appellants) have been awarded the sentences as under:-

Convicts

Offences Rigorous

Imprisonment

(each)

Fine

(each)

In default of

payment of

fine, rigorous

imprisonment

(each)

Amit and

Ravinder

363/34

IPC

7(seven)

years

Rs.2000/- 15 (fifteen)

days

Amit and

Ravinder

366-A

/34 IPC

7(seven)

years

Rs.5000/- 1(one) month

Ravinder,

Amit,

Kuldeep

and Anil

376-D/

34 IPC

& 6 of

POCSO

Act

20 (twenty)

years

Rs.10,000/- 2 (two)

months

Ravinder,

Amit,

Kuldeep

and Anil

14(3)

POCSO

Act

Life

Imprisonment

Rs.15,000/- 3 (three)

months

Ravinder,

Amit,

Kuldeep

and Anil

506/34

IPC

2 (two)

years

Rs.1000/- One week

All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

3. In CRR No.4537 of 2017, petitioner Vikram has assailed the

judgment dated 08.08.2016 and order on sentence dated 09.08.2016 passed

by learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Jind (for short

‘PM, JJB’), holding him and his co-accused Sewa Singh guilty for

committing the offences punishable under Sections 376-D and 506 read

with Section 34 IPC (but acquitting them under Section 376(2)(i) IPC) and

sentencing them as detailed below:-

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -4-

Offence Sentence

U/S 376-D IPC

read with Section

34 IPC

Period of stay of three years

U/S 506 IPC read

with Section 34 IPC

Period of stay of two years

It was specifically ordered that the periods of sentences would

not run concurrently.

The petitioner has also challenged the judgment rendered by

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind (as ‘the appellate Court’) on

31.10.2017 dismissing Criminal Appeal No.68 of 2016, filed by him and

Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2016, preferred by his co-accused Sewa against

the above-mentioned judgment and order on sentence passed by learned

PM, JJB but however, modifying the order on sentence to the extent that

both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is to be noted that

CRR No.4638 of 2017 filed by afore-said Sewa Singh challenging the

above-referred judgment dated 08.08.2016 and order on sentence dated

09.08.2016 and judgment dated 31.10.2017 was dismissed by this High

Court on 18.07.2018.

4. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating in the

filing of present Appeals and Revision, are that on 02.08.2013, Inspector/

SHO Rohtash Singh, along-with some other police officials, was present at

Old Bus Stand, Uchana Mandi for patrolling and crime checking. The

prosecutrix (here-in-after to be referred as ‘P’), accompanied by her mother

and paternal-uncle, met him and informed him about the alleged commission

of offences. On receipt of this information, the afore-named SHO requested

Ms. Anuradha Sharma, Advocate, Member of the Legal Aid Panel and SI

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -5-

Santosh Devi, Women Cell, Jind, to reach there. After their arrival, ‘P’ made

a statement in their presence which was reduced into writing accordingly.

‘P’ stated that she was studying in 10+1 Class in the Govt. Girls Senior

Secondary School, Uchana Mandi. Appellant Ravinder @ Vicky had been

running a repair-shop near their house under the name and style of ‘Vicky

Auto Care’ and being neighbourer, he used to frequently visit their house for

getting butter-milk and water. However, six months prior to that day, the

above-named appellant had shifted his shop to Koth Bus Stand but he

continued visiting their place. About two months earlier, her mother had

gone to the house of her uncle Radhey Sham for grinding the wheat and her

father was away in connection with his work. At about 10:00/10:15 PM, she

was going to her uncle’s house for calling her mother and the electricity

supply had gone off at that time. Appellants Ravinder and Amit met her on

the way and they forcibly made her to sit on the motor-cycle and gagged her

mouth and took her to the afore-referred shop at Koth Bus Stand. Four boys,

whose names she came to know, later-on, as Kuldeep @ Sunda, Vikram @

Vicky, Sewa and Anil, were already present there. The appellants, petitioner

Vikram and their co-accused Sewa raped her turn by turn and prepared the

video-film of above-said act on mobile-phone. She started crying out of pain

and they (all the six accused) threatened that in case, she disclosed the

incident to anyone, they would kill her and her family members and would

also defame her by making the video-film/clip public. After reaching home,

she did not disclose about the afore-described occurrence to anyone, out of

fear. Thereafter, the above-named accused used to call her at the shop for

sexual favours but she kept on refusing for the same.

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -6-

5. ‘P’ further alleged that on 01.08.2013, she was crossing the

shop of appellant Ravinder @ Vicky and he, along-with appellant Amit, was

standing in front of his shop. They said to her that she had not come despite

their repeated calls and when she told them not to force her for doing so,

they handed over a CD to her while telling that after watching the same, she

might come to them or otherwise, they would make it (CD) public. After

returning home, she was watching the afore-said CD and in the meantime,

her paternal-uncle and mother came there and she disclosed the entire facts

to them. This statement was forwarded to the police station where a formal

FIR was registered. The CD, as produced by ‘P’, was taken into possession.

She (‘P’) was got medico-legally examined and her statement was also got

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The appellants and petitioner and their

co-accused Sewa were arrested. Further necessary investigation was, then,

carried out and on completion thereof, Challan/Final Police Report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C was prepared against the appellants and was presented in

the Court. Since petitioner Vikram and accused Sewa had been declared to

be juveniles, therefore, separate Challan was prepared against them and was

presented before the Competent Court.

6. After the case (for short ‘the Sessions Case’) against the

appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions at Jind, the same had

been assigned to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, i.e the trial

Court, for its trial. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor for the State and

learned defence counsel and perusing the Challan/Final Police Report as

also the documents annexed therewith, learned trial Court framed the

charges against appellant Amit under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC and also

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -7-

charge-sheeted all the appellants under Sections 376-D, 506 read with

Section 34 IPC and Sections 6 and 14(3) of the POCSO Act. All the

appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. It is pertinent

to mention here that on 19.07.2014, learned trial Court observed that

appellant Ravinder had not been charge-sheeted under Sections 363 and

366A read with Section 34 IPC and therefore, the additional charge qua the

above-referred offences was framed against him and he pleaded not guilty

to the same.

7. In order to bring home the guilt of appellants, the prosecution

examined as many as fifteen (15) witnesses, i.e ‘P’ as PW1, Santosh as

PW2, Dr. Swati Jain as PW3, L.C. Sonia as PW4, EASI Dharambir Singh

as PW5, Dr. Sushil Garg as PW6, SI Jagbir Singh as PW7, EASI Rajender

Singh as PW8, SI Rajender Singh as PW9, SI Santosh as PW10, SI Jaibir

as PW11, Principal named Indu Sheokand as PW12, Draftsman Kuldeep

Gupta as PW13, Inspector Rohtash as PW14 and Inspector Manoj as PW15.

Thereafter, learned Public Prosecutor for the State closed the prosecution

evidence. Then, the appellants were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C to

explain the incriminating material/circumstances, appearing against them in

the prosecution evidence, as led on record, wherein they pleaded innocence

and stated that they had falsely been implicated in this case. They tendered

birth-certificates Exhibits DX and DY and closed their defence evidence.

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and evaluating the material

as available on the record, learned trial Court held the appellants guilty and

awarded the sentences to them, as already described in Para No.2 of this

judgment.

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -8-

8. Learned PM, JJB also framed the charges against petitioner

Vikram (in CRR No.4537 of 2017) and his co-accused Sewa for the

commission of offences under Sections 376-D, 376(2)(i) and 506 IPC and

both of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.

9. To substantiate its allegations against the petitioner and his

afore-named co-accused, the prosecution examined nineteen (19) witnesses

namely Inspector Rohtash as PW1, LC Sonia as PW2, ‘P’ (again numbered

as PW2), Santosh as PW3, SI Santosh Devi as PW4, EASI Dharambir Singh

as PW5, EASI Rajender Singh as PW6, SI Rajender Singh as PW7, Dr.

Sushil Garg as PW8, SI Jaibir as PW9, Dr. Swati Jain as PW10, Draftsman

Kuldeep Kumar as PW11, Inspector Manoj Kumar as PW12, ESI Jagbir

Singh as PW13, ASI Rajender Singh as PW14, Advocate Anuradha Sharma

as PW15, Jogi Ram, Record Keeper, Sessions Court, Jind as PW16, Smt.

Taranjit Kaur, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal as PW17 and Dr. Anil

Kumar as PW18. After the closure of prosecution evidence by learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State, the petitioner and his co-accused

were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C to explain the circumstances,

appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, as adduced on record,

wherein they stated that the case of prosecution was false and the witnesses

had also deposed falsely. However, they did not lead any evidence in their

defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appraising the

record, learned PM, JJB acquitted the petitioner and his co-accused Sewa of

the charge qua offence under Section 376(2)(i) IPC but held them guilty for

the commission of offences under Sections 376-D and 506 read with Section

34 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Separate appeals, as preferred by

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -9-

them have been dismissed by learned appellate Court, while modifying the

punishment awarded to them, as detailed in Para No.3 of this judgment.

10. We have heard learned respective counsel for the appellants in

the instant three (03) Criminal Appeals and for the petitioner in CRR No.

4537 of 2017 as well as learned counsel for the respondent-State in all

these cases and have also gone through the record carefully.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants and petitioner have

contended that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place in June

2013 whereas the formal FIR was registered on 02.08.2013 and thus, there

was a huge delay of two (02) months on the part of ‘P’ in reporting the

matter to the police and this delay, by itself, casts a shadow of doubt on the

entire version of prosecution.

12. However, the above-raised contention is devoid of any merit

because while appearing as PW1 in the Sessions Case and as PW2 before

learned PM, JJB, ‘P’ categorically deposed that all the six boys had raped

her turn by turn and had also video-graphed this act in the mobile-phone

and they had threatened her that in case, she disclosed the incident to

anyone, they would kill her and her family members and would make the

video-film public and would, thereby, defame her and therefore, she had

not disclosed the afore-said facts to anyone but thereafter, the accused had

repeatedly been calling her at the shop and she had refused for the same

and when on 01.08.2013, she was passing in front of the shop of appellant

Ravinder, he and appellant Amit, who were present there, handed over one

CD to her and asked her to watch the same and said that thereafter, if she

wanted, she could come to them or otherwise, they would make it (CD)

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -10-

public and on the next day, on finding an opportunity, she started viewing

the above-referred CD and in the meantime, her mother and paternal-uncle

came there and asked her as to what she was watching and then, she

mustered courage and disclosed the said incident to them. ‘P’ was studying

in 10+1 Class at the time of occurrence in question and she had, allegedly,

been threatened by the appellants, petitioner and accused Sewa with the

afore-mentioned dire consequences in the eventuality of her disclosing the

incident to anyone. In such circumstances, her silence in respect of the

alleged occurrence, out of fear, is not unusual at all and in fact, on being

noticed by her mother and paternal-uncle while watching the CD, she had

narrated the entire facts to them on 01.08.2013, for the first time and the

FIR had been lodged on the very next day, i.e on 02.08.2013. In view of

these facts and circumstances, the delay in registration of the FIR stands

plausibly explained and the same cannot be termed to be an inordinate one

and hence, it cannot be construed to have any adverse effect on the version

of ‘P’ and the case of prosecution as well.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants have pointed out that PW12

Indu Sheokand, Principal of Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Uchana

Mandi, has deposed that as per the summoned record, the date of birth of ‘P’

was 10.05.1998 but during her cross-examination, she has stated that in the

primary school record, P’s date of birth had been mentioned as 10.05.1997

and they have also drawn our attention to the depositions, as made by PW2

Santosh, mother of ‘P’, to the effect that ‘P’ was born two (02) years after

the birth of her son Govind and have, then, referred to Exhibit DX, the copy

of birth-certificate of son of Roshan and Santosh, the parents of ‘P’, wherein

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -11-

his date of birth has been recorded as 26.10.1991 and have further pointed

out that Exhibit DY is the copy of birth-certificate of ‘Nirmal’, the daughter

of parents of ‘P’, showing her (Nirmal’s) date of birth as 14.10.1997 and

they have contended that from the above-discussed evidence, it becomes

explicit that the dates of birth of ‘P’, as entered in the school record, were

incorrect and in fact, she was more than 18 years old at the time of alleged

incident and therefore, the provisions of POCSO Act were not attracted in

the present case.

14. However, the afore-referred contention is bereft of any force

because though during her cross-examination, PW12 has stated that in the

primary school record brought by her, the date of birth of ‘P’ had been

mentioned as 10.05.1997 whereas during her examination-in-chief, she has

deposed that as per the record of their school, her (‘P’s) date of birth was

10.05.1998 but it is apposite to clarify here that she (PW12) has specifically

stated during her cross-examination itself that the above-said discrepancy/

mistake had crept in the record while making an entry for admission in 9

th

Standard. As discussed earlier, ‘P’ was studying in 10+1 Class at the time

of incident in question. From the afore-detailed depositions of PW12, it

becomes clear that the date of birth of ‘P’ had been recorded as 10.05.1997

at the time of her admission in the primary school, much prior to the above-

referred occurrence and even the mistake of mentioning the same in the

subsequent school record as 10.05.1998, had occurred almost two (02) years

prior to the alleged incident and thus, both the entries had not been made to

falsely show ‘P’ to be under the age of 18 years at that time. Even if her

(P’s) date of birth is taken as 10.05.1997, even then the fact remains that at

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -12-

the time of alleged commission of offence in June, 2013 and on 01.08.2013

as well, her age was slightly more than/above 16 years. Moreover, PW2, the

mother of ‘P’, has categorically deposed during her cross-examination that

she got married about 20 years ago and her son Govind was born about 02

years after her marriage and ‘P’ was born 02 years thereafter. From these

depositions also, it becomes explicit that ‘P’ was about 16 years old at the

relevant time. In such circumstances, it is held that ‘P’ was under the age of

18 years at the time of occurrence in question and was, therefore, a ‘Child’

within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act.

15. So far as birth-certificates Exhibits DX and DY are concerned,

it is worth-while to mention here that the same had been tendered by the

appellants in their defence evidence only and they did not summon the

original record in respect thereof, from the concerned quarter so as to prove

the same in accordance with law and did not put these certificates to ‘P’ or

her mother while cross-examining them as PW1 and PW2 respectively and

also did not cross-examine P’s mother (PW2) regarding the age of her two

(02) other daughters besides ‘P’ and did not even ask her as to whether any

of her daughters had ever been named as ‘Nirmal’ or not. It being so, these

certificates cannot be read in defence evidence. To add to it, the appellants

have not produced the birth-certificates of said two (02) other daughters of

PW2, on the record.

16. Learned counsel for appellant Ravinder @ Vicky has contended

that in her statement Exhibit PA as recorded by PW14-Inspector/SHO, ‘P’

has alleged that all the accused, including appellant Ravinder @ Vicky, had

raped her by taking turns but in her statement Exhibit PB as recorded under

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -13-

Section 164 Cr.P.C, she has stated that the afore-named appellant had not

raped her and he had, rather, abducted her and had only been watching the

occurrence and this discrepancy in her above-discussed versions makes her

entire testimony as PW1, highly doubtful.

17. Again, the afore-raised contention does not hold any water

because though in her statement Exhibit PB, ‘P’ had stated that appellant

Ravinder @ Vicky had not raped her but it is again necessary to point it out

here that while deposing as PW1, she (‘P’) has categorically stated during

her cross-examination that she had not mentioned the name of the above-

said appellant in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, Exhibit

PB, as she was under threat from him. Moreover, at the time of recording her

depositions, learned trial Court has specifically mentioned that a CD (video),

as stated to have been handed over by her (‘P’ i.e PW1) to the police, had

been played in the lap-top provided to that Court and has further observed

as under:-

“the witness stated that the girl seen therein is she herself.

She has stated that the boys visible in this video C.D are

Anil, Kuldeep, Sewa. She further stated that the first boy

wearing white shirt visible in the C.D is Sewa, the boy in

blue T-shirt is Vicky @ Ravinder. Another boy who is seen

standing in white shirt is Amit, seen in the clip after about

one minute ten seconds of video clip. The boy sitting on a

Takht in Jeans and green blue T-shirt is Kuldeep. The boy

seen who is putting hand on my mouth is Vicky @

Ravinder. The boy who is standing nearby wearing check

shirt is Anil. Again stated that the boy in check shirt is

Vikram. The C.D is ExP1. It is also observed herein that

C.D is containing obscene act as if a girl is subjected to

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -14-

sexual assault.”

In para No.54 of judgment dated 19.07.2014, it has specifically

been mentioned by learned trial Court that

“in the aforesaid CD, the prosecutrix can also be clearly

heard crying and shouting. It is also clearly visible that

the prosecutrix was being held by one when the other

accused was committing rape turn by turn.”

In view of the afore-detailed facts and circumstances, the

above-referred version, as set-forth by ‘P’ in her statement Exhibit PB

(recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C) regarding appellant Ravinder not

having raped her, stands duly explained and the same does not create any

dent in her version as well as the case of prosecution.

18. Learned counsel for the appellants and also the petitioner have

contended that the mobile-phone, as allegedly used for making the video clip

/film regarding the afore-said occurrence, had not been taken by the police

into possession while conducting the investigation in the case and therefore,

the above-mentioned Compact Disc (CD) cannot be taken into consideration

and this infirmity in the case of prosecution, makes it highly doubtful.

19. However, this contention also does not cut any ice because

while appearing as PW14 in the afore-referred Sessions Case and as PW1

before learned PM, JJB, Inspector Rohtash Singh, the Investigating Officer,

has made categoric depositions regarding the disclosure statements suffered

by appellants Ravinder, Amit, Kuldeep and Anil (exhibited as PCC, PDD,

PEE and PFF respectively in the Sessions Case) and by petitioner Vikram

and his co-accused Sewa (exhibited as PW1/E and PW6/A before learned

PM, JJB) and the recovery of CDs at their instance, in pursuance thereof.

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -15-

His depositions have duly been corroborated/supported by SI Jaibir Singh,

who testified as PW11 in the above-said Sessions Case and as PW9 before

learned PM, JJB. The depositions of both these witnesses sufficiently prove

the factum of recovery of CDs from the appellants and the petitioner as

well and there are no cogent reasons to disbelieve/doubt the same. In these

circumstances, the factum of mobile-phone(s) as used for preparing/making

the video-film of the occurrence in question having not been taken into

possession, does not suffice at all to rob the case of the prosecution of its

credibility/veracity.

20. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants and petitioner have

contended that the father of ‘P’ had raised a loan of Rs.40,000/- from

appellant Ravinder @ Vicky but was dilly-dallying the repayment thereof

and when the afore-said appellant and his friends, i.e remaining appellants

and petitioner Vikram, repeatedly asked him (‘P’s father) to pay back the

loan amount, he had falsely implicated them in this case and it being so,

they are entitled to their acquittal.

21. Again, the above-raised contention is not tenable because the

appellants and petitioner have not placed even an iota of evidence/material

on the record to prove that ‘P’s father had secured a loan from appellant

Ravinder and had not repaid the same and on the appellants and petitioner

having insisted for the repayment thereof, he had falsely involved them in

this case. Even otherwise, in normal course of events, no parent would

stake the feminine grace and dignity of his/her daughter and honour of the

family, merely to avoid the repayment of any loan.

22. No other argument was raised or addressed.

CRA-D No.1333-DB of 2014 (O&M)

and other connected cases -16-

23. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the

judgment dated 19.07.2014 and order on sentence dated 23.07.2014 handed

down by learned trial Court (assailed in all the three Criminal Appeals) and

the judgment dated 08.08.2016 and order on sentence dated 09.08.2016,

passed by learned PM, JJB and the judgment dated 31.10.2017 rendered by

learned appellate Court (impugned in CRR No.4537 of 2017) do not suffer

from any infirmity, illegality or perversity or irregularity so as to warrant any

interference by this Court. Resultantly, all the three Criminal Appeals and

one Criminal Revision in hand, being sans any merit, are dismissed.

24. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of

accordingly.

(LISA GILL) (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)

JUDGE JUDGE

December 08, 2025

neetu

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No