1 State Vs.

Surinderjit Singh Rana

IN THE COURT OF MRS. ARCHANA PURI,

SESSIONS JUDGE, SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

Sessions Case No. RT-14 dated 30.9.15/26.4.16.

Registration No.SC/150/2015.
Date of decision: 03.02.2017.

STATE

Versus

Surinderjit Singh Rana, son of Amarjit Singh Rana, son of Col. Gurcharan

Singh, resident of House no.1493, Phase 3B2, Mohali.

..Accused.

FIR No. 48 dated 1.4.2015.

Under Sections: 376, 377, 496 IPC.

Police Station: Mataur.

=========

Present: Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Accused Surinderjit Singh Rana on bail with counsel Sh.
Jarnail Singh Advocate.

JUDGMENT:

Accused Surinderjit Singh Rana has been sent up to face trial

for the commission of offences under Sections 376, 377, 495 IPC, by P.S.

Mataur.

2. The background facts in nutshell are, as follows:

That, the prosecutrix (name withheld), d/o Surjit Singh was

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 2 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

earlier married to Kuldeep Singh, son of Satpal Singh, but has been

divorced from him. Surinderjit Singh Rana approached the mother of the

prosecutrix, namely Rajinder Kaur, through a member of sikh sangat in

Gurudwara Nauvi Pathshahi Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar and the

said person has already gone abroad. Surinderjit Singh Rana came to their

house alongwith old sikh couple, whom the prosecutrix can recognize,

while on seeing them. The prosecutrix and her mother had clearly told

Surinder Singh and his accompanying parents that divorce proceedings of

the prosecutrix are going on in Jalandhar. However, Surinderjit Singh

Rana insisted to get married immediately. On his insistence, Roka

ceremony was performed in the house of the prosecutrix on 30.4.2014. In

the divorce petition of the prosecutrix, the proceedings became exparte on

7.5.2014, before the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar. The

prosecutrix had already shown Surinderjit Singh Rana, about the fact of

pending proceedings before the Court, through Internet. Finally, the

exparte divorce was granted to the prosecutrix on 19.9.2014. In the

meanwhile, after the Roka ceremony, Surinderjit Singh started

pressurizing the family of the prosecutrix for their marriage. However,

the prosecutrix had requested him to perform marriage, only after the

decree of divorce. When the exparte proceedings were initiated in the

divorce petition, Surinderjit Singh Rana threatened the prosecutrix to go

abroad and would not get married to the prosecutrix. Upon his pressure,

even Surinderjit Singh had indulged into sexual relationship with the

prosecutrix, even prior to the marriage. Due to his pressure, the family of
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 3 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

the prosecutrix acceded to his request and marriage of prosecutrix took

place with Surinderjit Singh on 17.6.2014, as per sikh rites (Anand Karj)

at Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Urban Estate, Phase-11, Jalandhar, which was

followed by Lunch at Hotel Sekhon Grand Namdev Chowk, near GPO,

G.T road, Jalandhar. Thereafter, the prosecutrix came to the house no.

1493, Phase 3B2, Mohali and stared living with Surinderjit Singh as man

and wife. The prosecutrix has one son aged 9 years namely Jasnoor Singh,

from her first marriage. He had not come alongwith the prosecutrix, at the

time of 'doli', but joined the prosecutrix on 24 th June 2014, when the

prosecutrix had come to visit her family. At the time of marriage, the

family of the prosecutrix had given Rs. 2 lacs to Surinderjit Singh, which

were the savings of the prosecutrix, as she was working at Alkem Lab,

Krishna Agency, New Jawahar Nagar, Jalandhar, for the last 8 years. He

was also given gold ring with diamonds and one gold Kara, at the time of

Phera on 21.6.2016, when she came back to Jalandhar. Even, 15000/- to

20,000/- rupees were spent on the lunch, hosted after the Anand Karj, by

the parents of the prosecutrix.

Further, it is the claim of the prosecutrix that Surinderjit

Singh has abnormal sexual tendencies and he indulged in weird sexual

behaviour. He indulged in anal intercourse, without her wishes and

throughout the day repeatedly wanted to have sex and after having sex

with her and without taking bath, he used to sit in the room, dedicated to

Shri Guru Granth Sahib, in the house. Even, after her son joined them on

24.6.2014, Surinderjit Singh used to send her son out of the house and
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 4 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

compel her to indulge in all types of abnormal sexual acts, in the most

depraved manner. On one hand, he pretended to be an apostle of sikh

religion and on the other hand, he was continuously taking drugs like

Zenegra (Viagra), throughout the day. As a result of his depraved sexual

behaviour, the prosecutrix developed serious infection in her anus and

had to undergo a major surgery. Pus was drained out of her stomach

through laser surgical procedure and she had been medically treated for

one month, after the surgery and her medical dressing cost was Rs. 500/-

per day for 30 days and she had spent more than Rs. 40,000/- to 50,000/-.

The saide had been caused due to the unnatural intercourse of Surinderjit

Singh against her wishes and he used to gave beatings to her whenever

she refused him for anal intercourse. Due to this physical and mental

torture, the prosecutrix went to her parental house at Jalandhar on

14.7.2014. She apprised her mother and brother about the said physical

and mental torture at the hands of Surinderjit Singh. On 20.7.2014, the

mother and brother of the prosecutrix came to Mohali, to talk to

Surinderjit Singh, and while they were talking with him, Surinderjit Singh

ran away from the house. While searching for him, the mother of the

prosecutrix, found a complaint made by Taranjeet Kaur, wife of

Surinderjit Singh, addressed to the SSP, Mohali and they found her

number on the said complaint. Then, the prosecutrix called her and she

told the prosecutrix that Surinderjit Singh is already married to her and

divorce has not yet taken place, as Surinderjit Singh was not honouring

his settlement/commitment with her. The prosecutrix then felt shocked, as

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 5 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

she has been cheated by Surinderjit Singh, who was already married. She

only indulged in sexual intercourse with him, believing him to be her

legal lawful husband. Surinderjit Singh had also promised the prosecutrix

that they would settle in America and he would also take her son to

America, as he was claiming to have an American passport, which he

never showed to her. Thereafter, she came to know from Taranjit Kaur

that Surinderjit Singh is not holding any American passport and he was

thrown out from Canada, as he had physically assaulted Taranjit Kaur and

caused injuries to her and due to a police case, he was sent back to India.

At the time of admission of the son of the prosecutrix in the school,

Surinderjit Singh had forced her to bring money from her parents. He had

gone to the school, but refused to make payment of the school fee. In

order to avoid his name from being mentioned as a father of Jasnoor

Singh, he got a single parents certificate prepared. It shows that

Surinderjit Singh was in the knowledge of all the facts and circumstances

relating to her previous marriage and divorce proceedings.

The Whatsapp messages show that Surinderjit Singh has been

calling his wife Taranjit Kaur as ex-wife, proving the fact that he has

fraudulently indulged in serious criminal offences, under law. The

whatsapp messages as asserted in the application are reproduced herein

given:-

August 17, 2014 wahaguru, Hi ruhi happy 17, how r u and

nor? I called u on 15 aug on a request of well wisher well I
am writing this to finally know your mind/thoughts on our
marriage which today now is 2 month old with over month
of separation no act. Our marriage was build in trust, love
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 6 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

and on promise that we remain committed/ to get r whatever

happens marriage with grace of Guru Granth Sahib 15:47 on
july 14 you decided to desert/leave our marriage without
involving husband and with no valid reason except on 13 july
night noor had to start sleeping on his own bed than our bed
that all I know Ruhi u were RIGHT about ur step mother
attitude anyways a lot happened after your step mother and
step brother came on 20 july I picked them from railway
station hoping they are here to resolve our
misunderstandings, however on the contrary than used very
foul language and describe our physical relationship detail
which only husband and wife talk your step brother stole my
2 personal USB drive and xwife papers and I know our
marriage snaps were sent to jaipur/xwife based on stolen
information well that makes someone happy...???.. hhmmm
anyways Kaamalpreet I know ur xparty divorce xxxxx with
ur 1st husband is running in court still I don't express any
grudges against anyone despite knowing a lot can be done I
m different and NOT step relating kind I Don't fear anything
since I fear only GOD, 5:48 Ruhi it seems that u have made
up ur mind to quit our marriage rest assure this shall be my
last contact/effort to have our marriage if ur interested else
Kamalpreet u choose to leave our marriage and no contact
means we both are out marriage and u have decided to
dissolve our marriage mutually as is Tc and regards
surinderjit singh-waheguru 5:48.

3. Proceedings in the present case were initiated, on the basis of

the application filed by the prosecutrix (name withheld), before SSP, SAS

Nagar (Mohali). Matter was probed into and case was registered u/s 376

IPC.

4. During the course of investigation, medical examination of

the prosecutrix was got conducted. Her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. was also

recorded. On 4.7.2015, Surinderjit Singh was arrested in the present case.

His memo of arrest and personal search memo were prepared. His medical

examination qua sexual fitness was also got conducted. Thereupon,

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 7 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

addition of offences u/s 377, 495 IPC was made.

On completion of investigation, challan was presented

against accused Surinderjit Singh Rana u/s 376, 377, 495 IPC.

5. On presentation of the challan, copies of documents, as

envisaged under section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to the accused. On the

basis of the report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. and the material coming

forth, the concerned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, had reached the

conclusion that offences u/s 376, 377 and 495 IPC are made out. Since the

offence u/s 376 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, as

such, vide order dated 23.9.2015, the case was committed to the Court of

learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Mohali (At that time, there was no

Court of District & Sessions Judge, existing at Mohali).

6. In pursuance of commitment proceedings, on the basis of

report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the documents annexed thereto, a

prima-facie case was made out against the accused u/s 495, 376 IPC.

Accordingly, charge was framed against the accused, which was read over

and explained to the accused in simple Punjabi language, to which, he

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

7. In endeavour to establish its claim, the prosecution has

examined as many as 12 witnesses, besides adducing documentary

evidence.

Dr. Kanchan, Gynecologist, Lajwanti Hospital and Nursing

Home, Jalandhar, had produced the record relating to the admission of

prosecutrix, in their hospital on 1.8.2014, vide registration no.16508.

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 8 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

Inadvertently, her statement has been recorded as PW-1, but she had only

produced the record.

PW-1 Dr. S.Nath, Medical Officer, Lajwanti Hospital and

Nursing Home, Jalandhar, has deposed about the admission of prosecutrix

in their hospital and further has also deposed about her to be a case of anal

abscess as she was complaining of peri anal region for two days. He also

deposed that operation was conducted by him. She was admitted on

1.8.2014 and was discharged on 2.8.2015. She had been attending the

hospital for dressing and follow up. Discharge and follow up slips are

Ex.PW1/A. He further proved the Lab test report, which is Ex.PW1/B. He

also deposed that the cause of problem was infection.

PW-2 Dr. Parminder Singh, Medical Officer, Civil

Hospital, Phase-6, Mohali, has deposed about conducting of the medical

examination of Surinderjit Singh accused on 4.7.2015, on the request

Ex.PW2/A and his report is Ex.PW2/B, wherein, he opined that there was

nothing to suggest that person was unable to perform sexual intercourse.

PW-3 HC Sudarshan Kumar tendered into evidence his

affidavit Ex.PW3/A, which is formal evidence.

PW-4 is prosecutrix (name withheld), d/o Surjit Singh. She

has deposed about factum of her previous marriage with Kuldeep Singh,

son of Satpal Singh and further also deposed that she had taken divorce

from him. She also deposed about the manner Surinderjit Singh had

approached her mother and thereupon, apprising Surinderjit Singh of her

divorce proceedings. However, she deposed that Surinderjit Singh had

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 9 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

insisted for immediate marriage and on his insistence, Roka ceremony

was performed at their house on 30.4.2014. She further deposed that

exparte proceedings were conducted in the divorce petition on 7.5.2014

and she had shown the pending proceedings to Surinderjit Singh on

Internet and on 19.9.2014, divorce was granted to her. She further

deposed that after Roka ceremony, Surinderjit Singh started pressurizing

her family for immediate marriage. They requested him that the marriage

will be performed after her divorce, but Surinderjit Singh threatened to go

abroad and shall not perform marriage with her, upon which, her marriage

was performed with Surinderjit Singh on 17.6.2014, by way of sikh rites

(Anand Karj ceremony) at Gurudwara Singh Sabha Urban Estate,

Jalandhar. Also, further she has deposed about the manner, in which, she

had come to live with accused in Mohali and further also deposed about

the sexual atrocities committed upon her, by accused Surinderjit Singh, as

a result whereof, she had developed serious infection in her anus and had

to undergo major surgery. She further deposed about Surinderjit Singh to

have subjected her to physical and mental torture. Also, she deposed about

the manner, in which, accused Surinderjit Singh had introduced the

prosecutrix as single parent, at the time of admission of her son Jasnoor

Singh, in the School. On 14.7.2014, she had gone to her parental house at

Jalandhar, due to the mental and physical treatment given to her by the

accused. She further deposed about the manner, in which, her mother and

brother, who were apprised of the conduct of Surinderjit Singh, had come

to Mohali, to talk with accused Surinderjit Singh, but however, he did not
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 10 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

behave properly with them and had ran away from the house. She further

deposed about the manner, in which, her mother and brother found a

complaint made by Taranjit Kaur, wife of Surinderjit Singh, addressed to

SSP, Mohali, from the drawer of a table lying in his house, alongwith one

pen drive. She further deposed about her mother to have talk with Amarjit

Singh, brother of Taranjit Kaur, whose mobile number was written on the

complaint and further that she had also made a phone call to Taranjit Kaur

and came to know about the marriage of Taranjit Kaur with Surinderjit

Singh. She further proved the photograph charts, which are Ex.PW4/A to

Ex.PW4/D, showing her marriage and Roka ceremony. She further proved

the complaint filed by her to SSP, Mohali, which is Ex.PW4/E and also

proved her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C., which is Ex.PW4/G. She

also deposed that the accused committed sexual intercourse with her after

subjecting her to beatings and extending torture to her. He also forced her

to do sexual and anal intercourse with her, after taking medicines for sex.

PW-5 MHC Harwinder Singh had brought the FIR No. 32

dated 28.2.2015, u/s 406, 498-A IPC, P.S. Mataur and proved the copy of

the same, which is Ex.PW5/A.

PW-6 Taranjit Kaur has deposed about the fact of

solemnization of her marriage with Surinderjit Singh on 16.1.2001 and

further deposed about the birth of two children, from the said wedlock.

She further deposed about the demand of dowry made by Surinderjit

Singh. She further deposed about the manner, in which, they had shifted

to Canada in the year 2006, where Surinderjit Singh had inflicted injuries
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 11 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

on her person and the matter was reported to the police, where Surinderjit

Singh remained in jail for 15 days. Thereafter, they shifted to India in the

year 2008. She further deposed that after they started living in Mohali,

again Surinderjit Singh harassed her, qua which, she got registered FIR

against him. Since Surinderjit Singh had thrown her out of his house, she

alongwith her children has shifted to Jaipur. Proceedings of FIR

Ex.PW5/A, are still going on against Surinderjit Singh.

PW-7 Gurcharan Singh, Head Granthi Gurudwara Baba

Jiwan Singh, village Sabowal, Distt. Jalandhar, has deposed that on

17.6.2015, prosecutrix daughter of Surjit Singh, got married to Surinderjit

Singh, son of Amarjit Singh, resident of H.No. 1493, Phase 3B2, Mohali.

He further deposed that Anand Karj ceremony was done by him, in the

Gurudwara. Also further, he deposed that no marriage certificate was

issued.

PW-8 Dr. Neena Garg, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital,

Phase-6, Mohali, has deposed about conducting of medical examination

of the prosecutrix on 10.4.2015, on the basis of the application Ex.PW8/A

and Ex.PW8/B is the endorsement made by the then SMO, thereby

deputing her to conduct medical examination. She further deposed about

the detail of the examination, as per the MLR, copy whereof is

Ex.PW8/C. She further deposed that samples were taken and sent for

examination at State Chemical Laboratory, Kharar and in pursuance of

receipt of report of Chemical Examiner Ex.PW8/B, in view of the recitals

of the same, on the basis of the application Ex.PW8/C, she had given her
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 12 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

opinion about the possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out.

Said report is Ex.PW8/D.

PW-9 Dr. N.K. Sardana has deposed about Provisional

Light Microscopic Histopath report of the prosecutrix and deposed that

the same had been prepared under his signatures and the same relates to

the sample sent to his laboratory by Dr. Mau Vasudev. He further deposed

that on analysis, it was observed in the report that There are scattered

chronic inflammatory cells amidst, which are seen collections of acute

inflammation. Fibrosis is present at the periphery. No granuloma seen.

He further deposed that his opinion given is Acute to chronic

inflammatory reaction and his report is Ex.PW1/B.

PW-10 ASI Jagir Singh is the Investigating Officer of the

present case. He has deposed that he had seen the enquiry report of Sh.

Akhil Chaudhary, who was Assistant S.P. and the same is Ex.PW10/A and

further deposed that on the basis of the report, FIR Ex.PW10/B was got

registered. He also deposed about having taken the prosecutrix before the

Ilaqa Magistrate, for recording of her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., on the

basis of the application Ex.PW4/F. On 16.4.2015, statement of the

prosecutrix was recorded by the Magistrate, which is Ex.PW4/G. He also

deposed that on 10.4.2015, the medical examination of the prosecutrix

was got conducted. The sealed envelope, which was handed over to LC

Jaswinder Singh, by the concerned doctor, was further handed over to

him, vide memo Ex.PW10/D. He also deposed that on 4.7.2015, he

arrested Surinderjit Singh from the park in front of his house. Memo of
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 13 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

arrest/intimation memo is Ex.PW10/E and his personal search memo is

Ex.PW10/F. He further deposed about the medical examination of the

accused having conducted, on the application, which is Ex.PW2/A and the

report made by the doctor is Ex.PW2/B.

PW-11 LC Jaswinder Kaur and PW-12 C-Karan Kumar,

tendered into evidence their affidavits Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW12/A,

which are formal evidence.

Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution

evidence.

8. On closure of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating

circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, were put to the

accused, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused took the

plea of false implication. His plea, so taken, for the convenience of

discussion, is reproduced in verbatim, as herein given:-

I was already married with Taranjit Kaur in the year 2001

and in July, 2012 Taranjit Kaur separted with me and has
taken two kids born out of this wedlock with her on
10.7.2014. On 10.6.2012 my wife Tarajit Kaur entered into
an agreement at P.S. Mataur, where she expressed that she
wants to pursue divorce and there is no chance of
reconciliation. Thereafter, I proceeded with prosecutrix
(complainant in the present case) based upon common
grounds and mutual interest. Since, we both were not
divorced from our previous marriage and we both were well
aware of marital status of each other. Since 17.6.2014, she
started staying with me in a mutual relationship. After 5 days
of staying with me, we brought her son Jasnoor Singh born
from her prior marriage and we started staying happily.
However, there were temperoral difference started occurring
due to the fact that she is still pursuing her previous
relationship which she is having in past which I learnt later.
Thereafter she realised that she cannot continue the
relationship with me and on 14.7.2014 she left me. After
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 14 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

seven days from separate, her mother Mrs. Rajinder Kaur

with his son Manpreet Singh came to my house to discuss the
matter. I was glad to receive them and was hopeful that now
the matter would be reconciled. However, on the contrary,
they had verbally abused me by levelling allegations which
were totally unfonded and baseless. They even passed lewd
comments on me and my religion. So after facing such abuse,
I detached myself from his relationship on 27.10.2014.
Prosecutrix and my first wife teamed together to level fake
and fabricated allegations in order to extort money and
property.

9. In defence, the accused tendered into evidence certified copy

of report dated 16.10.2014 Ex.D1, application no. 120-8/S/SSP/SAS

Nagar Ex.D2, report of Inspector P.S. Mattaur Ex.D3, statement of

Taranjit Kaur Ex.D4, compromise dated 10.6.2014 Ex.D5, list of

documents submitted to police P.S. Mattaur Ex.D6, compromise dated

28.7.2014 Ex.D7, statement of Taranjit Kaur Ex.D8 and his own statement

Ex.D9. Thereafter, the accused closed his defence evidence.

10. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State,

learned defence counsel and perused the evidence brought on record.

11. In the light of the aforesaid evidence, at the very outset, it has

been assiduously argued by the Public Prosecutor for the State that, from

the voluminous evidence brought on record, it stands established that the

offence of bigamy has been committed by the accused, as he has

performed marriage for the second time with the prosecutrix, during the

subsistence of his first marriage with Taranjit Kaur and concealed the fact

of his first marriage. Also, it is submitted that the fact of first marriage of

the accused stands proved from the testimony of Taranjit Kaur and this

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 15 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

fact, as such, has also not been disputed by the accused himself, in view

of the plea taken in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Also, it is submitted by

the learned Public Prosecutor that the offence of rape of the prosecutrix by

the accused Surinderjit Singh, also stands proved from the testimony of

the prosecutrix, coupled with the medical evidence brought on record. He

has referred to the testimonies of the doctors, who have been examined

during the course of trial and also to the report of the Chemical Examiner

Ex.PW8/B, where spermatozoa was found from the vaginal swabs of the

prosecutrix. Also, it is submitted that even though, the accused, as per the

peal taken in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has denied about undergoing

marriage and has asserted about live in relationship and even if, that be so,

this itself establish about the sexual accessibility of the accused with the

prosecutrix, which itself strengthens the version of the prosecution and it

also gains strength from the medical evidence brought on record.

Thus, summing up his arguments, learned Public Prosecutor

has submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt

of the accused. As such, a prayer has been made for conviction of the

accused Surinderjit Singh and to adequately sentence him.

12. On the contrary, learned counsel for the accused has refuted

the claim of the prosecution. It is submitted by the learned defence

counsel that to secure conviction for the accused, it was incumbent upon

the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond shadow of

reasonable doubt. However, tested on such touchstone, when we go

through the evidence brought on record, the version of the prosecution

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 16 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

fails to pass through the aforesaid test of scrutiny. He submits that there

are various flaws coming forth, in the evidence brought by the

prosecution, which itself negates the prosecution version. It is submitted

by the learned counsel for the accused that to establish the offence of

bigamy, it was utmost required on the part of the prosecution, to establish

that the accused performed a lawful and legal marriage. In fact, it was

required to prove solemnization of second marriage in accordance with

essential religious rites and ceremonies, applicable to the parties.

However, it is submitted that no sufficient and satisfactory evidence has

been led by the prosecution. Also, further it is submitted that, even if, we

consider the testimony of the complainant and her witnesses, at its face

value, even then, the requisite requirement of law qua solemnization of

marriage is not fulfilled. Also further, he has submitted that the accused

had never committed rape upon the prosecutrix. Regarding the same also,

it is further submitted that finding of spermatozoa, as stated in the

Chemical Examiner Report Ex.PW8/B, shows that the prosecutrix was

having sexual accessibility with person other than the accused and on this

account, DNA analysis having not conducted, shows about the scientific

evidence having not brought on the record, which itself raises doubt about

the truthfulness of the prosecution version.

To strengthen his arguments, learned defence counsel has

placed reliance upon (i) Mrs. Amarjit Kaur Vs. Ranjit Singh Sarao

and others, 1992(2) CLR 248, (ii) Anand Parkash Vs. Rama Devi,

1998(3) RCR 580, (iii) Manjit Kaur alias Lakhminder Kaur Vs. State
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 17 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

of Punjab, 1994(2) RCR 303, (iv) Avtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab,

2016(1) Law Herald 578, (v) Prashant Bharti Vs. Stte of NCT of

Delhi, 2013(3) RCR (Criminal) 399 and (vi) Deelip Singh @ Dilip

Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 972.

Thus, summing up his arguments, the learned defence

counsel has submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt

of the accused, beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. As such, a prayer has

been made for acquittal of the accused.

13. In the light of the rival submissions made by the learned

Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the accused,

the point for determination formulated in the present case is as follows:

(A) Whether on 17.6.2014, in the area of Jalandhar,

accused Surinderjit Singh Rana contacted for the

second time marriage with the prosecutrix, while

concealing from her the fact of his previous marriage

and during the subsistence of his first marriage and

thereafter, he had committed rape with the prosecutrix

and thus, committed offences u/s 495 and 376 IPC?

14. Bigamy has been rendered an offence by Section 494 IPC. If

any person having a spouse living, marries in any case, where the later

marriage is void by reason of its taking place, during the life time of the
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 18 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

husband or wife of the former marriage, he commits the offence of

bigamy. The offence u/s 495 IPC is an aggravated form of offence, as

defined in Section 494 IPC. To bring home a charge of bigamy, it must be

established the alleged prior marriage had been solemnized after due

observance of rites and ceremonies. Burden to prove both the marriages

as ingredients of the offence of bigamy is on the prosecution. If it be

found that the alleged prior marriage had not been so solemnized, the

mere fact that the man had lived with such a woman with whom some

ceremonies of marriage had been performed, will not satisfy the essential

ingredient to prove the charge of bigamy. First marriage must be strictly

proved. The Section 494 IPC opens with the words whoever, having a

husband or wife living marries. The expression whoever marries in

Section 494 IPC must mean whoever marries validly or whoever

marries and whose marriage is a valid one. The words means whoever

goes through a form of marriage known to or recognized by the law as

capable of producing a valid marriage. So, the expression marriage in

Section 494 would mean marriage valid in form though not in law.

15. In this backdrop, now adverting to the case in hand. As per

the claim of the prosecution, accused Surinderjit Singh was firstly married

to Taranjit Kaur, who has been examined as PW-6. This witness has

categorically deposed about the act of her marriage with Surinderjit Singh

Rana on 16.1.2001 and further deposed about the birth of two children

from the said wedlock. However, this witness has not deposed about the

manner of performance of her marriage. She has not stated about the form
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 19 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

of marriage and the ceremonies of marriage, relating to the same having

been performed. But, anyhow, it is pertinent to mention that accused

Surinderjit Singh has not disputed the fact of his marriage with Taranjit

Kaur and this admission on the part of the accused, as per the plea taken

in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., may be utilized as proof of subsistence of

the first valid marriage.

16. If that be so, now it was of utmost importance, on the part of

the prosecution, to establish performance of second marriage with the

prosecutrix and concealing from her, the fact of his previous marriage.

While, in the witness box, the prosecutrix had stated about the initiation

of the matrimonial alliance, at the instance of Surinderjit Singh and

thereafter, she has also deposed about the performance of her marriage

with Surinderjit Singh, by way of sikh rites (Anand Karj ceremony) at

Gurudwara Singh Sabha Urban Estate, Jalandhar, on 17.6.2014. Even, in

the application filed by her to SSP, SAS Nagar, she had stated about

taking place of her marriage with Surinderjit Singh on 17.6.2014,

according to sikh rites (Anand Karj ceremony), at Gurudwara Singh

Sabha, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar. However, it is pertinent to

mention that though, she had stated about the form of marriage undergone

with Surinderjit Singh, but she had not stated about the necessary

ceremonies, relating to the same, to have been so performed. It is

pertinent to mention that to prove the fact of marriage of the prosecutrix

with the accused, the prosecution has also examined PW-7 Gurcharan

Singh, Head Granthi of Gurudwara Baba Jiwan Singh, Village Sabowal,

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 20 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

Distt. Jalandhar. The said witness had stated about himself to be the Head

Granthi of Gurudwara Baba Jiwan Singh, village Sabowal, Distt.

Jalandhar, and has further stated that on 17.6.2015, the prosecutrix,

daughter of Surjit Singh, was married with Surinderjit Singh, son of

Amarjit Singh. This witness had further given the detail of her residence

and also stated that the Anand Karj ceremony was done by him in the

Gurudwara. However, it is pertinent to mention that in the examination-

in-chief, he had stated that no marriage certificate was issued. Besides the

same, also it is pertinent to mention that as per the version of the

prosecution, the marriage had taken place at Gurudwara Singh Sabha,

Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar, but however, the said witness PW-7

Gurcharan Singh, Head Granthi, had nowhere stated about himself to be

present in the Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar,

on the day of marriage. Even, the day of marriage has been mentioned as

17.6.2015, though, as per the version of the prosecution, it was performed

on 17.6.2016. Besides the same, also it is pertinent to mention that while

facing cross-examination, this witness had also stated that their

Gurudwara does not have any register regarding entry of marriages

performed there and he stated in examination in chief, as observed

aforesaid, that no marriage certificate was issued. Then the question

arises, how this witness remembered about the performance of marriage

between the prosecutrix and the accused, on the specific date and more

particularly, when he has given the particulars of her residence also. This

is all important to consider, as the said witness, while facing cross-

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 21 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

examination, had stated that he does not know the parties to the marriage,

of which, he has given the evidence in this case, personally. He also stated

that he does not remember the date, when his statement was recorded by

the police and further stated that he does not know if the police had

recorded his statement. He also stated that he does not know the purpose,

for which, the summons were sent to him in this case. He does not know

the name of Ragi Jatha, who had performed the marriage by reciting

Kirtan, at the time of Lawa-phera. He also stated that he does not know

the date, on which, the marriage was performed. He also stated that he

does not know, if no marriage was performed throughout the month of

June, 2015. He also stated that this fact is not known to him and may be

known to the parties, who had performed the marriage. Besides this

manner of cross-examination, it is pertinent to mention that while

recording of his statement, this witness has not identified Surinderjit

Singh, to be the same person, whose marriage, he has performed.

Considering his testimony as a whole, the same proves to be of no help to

the prosecution, to establish the fact of marriage and there appears to be

an exaggerated effort made on the part of this witness, to assist the

prosecution to establish its claim, but however, his testimony is hollow

one and no sustenance, as such, can be drawn from the same, to prove the

fact of marriage of the prosecutrix with accused Surinderjit Singh.

17. In the light of the same, the learned Public Prosecutor has

placed much emphasis upon the photographic charts, which are

Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D. On the basis thereof, he has

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 22 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

assiduously submitted that the fact of marriage stands established.

However, the aforesaid submission is not tenable. Very true, he has

pointed out that the accused and the prosecutrix are depicted in the said

photographs, but nowhere Guru Granth Sahib is shown and it also does

not establish about the taking of the 'Pheras' in front of Shri Guru Granth

Sahib. Though, in the photographs, performance of Ardas, as such, can be

concluded, but it nowhere, shows the Ardas to have been made in front of

Shri Guru Granth Sahib. From the background of two photographs, as

shown in the photographic chart Ex.PW4/C, it is evident that it relates to

the photographs, having clicked in some bedroom, where soft toys of the

children are present. This itself demolish the claim of the prosecution. It,

therefore, follows that the impugned marriage, as claimed by the

prosecution, does not stand established to be celebrated/performed with

proper ceremonies and in due form and precisely, on this account, it

cannot be said to have been solemnized between the prosecutrix and the

accused. To attract the penal clauses of Sections 494 and 495 IPC, it has

to be established that the marriage was celebrated with proper ceremonies

and in due form. Merely going through certain ceremonies with the

intention of going through marriage is not enough to base conviction u/s

494/495 IPC. It is, therefore, essential that the second marriage should be

proved to have taken place and the essential ceremonies, constituting the

same to have all gone through. The vital features of the ceremonies must

be proved. But, as observed aforesaid, the same is lacking in the present

case and no satisfactory evidence qua concealment of the previous

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 23 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

marriage, as such, has come on record.

18. In the light of the fact of performance of second marriage not

being established, the defence plea of live in relation, as taken by the

accused, stands probablised.

19. Now coming to the offence u/s 376 IPC. From the evidence

adduced by the prosecution, it stands established that the complainant

before having interaction (of any kind), with accused Surinderjit Singh,

was earlier married and was having a son of 9 years of age, as asserted in

application Ex.PW4/E, which forms the basis of the present case and as

deposed by the prosecutrix, while in the witness box as PW-4. That being

so, it is quite obvious that the prosecutrix is quite a mature woman, who

can understand her good and bad and can take rational decision.

Considering this to be the maturity level of the prosecutrix, even if, there

is claimed to be any sexual accessibility with the accused, the same ipso

facto does not establish it to be a rape. Very true, as submitted by the

learned Public Prosecutor that rape can be established, on the basis of the

sole testimony of the prosecutrix, but however, at the same time, it should

be noted that it is a settled proposition of law that testimony of the

prosecutrix should be clear, specific and trustworthy. It should not smell

of malice. Only then, it can form the basis for conviction. Even, this

statement has to be scrutinized, in the context of the various

circumstances spelt out, in the evidence brought on record and perusal of

the same should lead to inescapable conclusion about the testimony of the

prosecutrix to be reliable and trustworthy. In Pandurang Sitaram

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 24 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

Bhagwant Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2005(1) RCR (Criminal) 859, it

was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, it cannot be sated that, 'in

every case, the statement of the prosecutrix should be taken as a gospel

truth, but normally reliance should be placed upon the testimony of the

prosecutrix, which should be scrutinized, in the context of other evidence

produced on the record, which leads to an inescapable conclusion that the

same was reliable and trustworthy.'

20. However, in the case in hand, it is pertinent to mention that,

in the complaint Ex.PW4/E, the prosecutrix has simply stated about the

accused to have committed rape with her, even before and after her

marriage with him, on 17.6.2014. She has not given any detail as to when

and where, he had committed rape with her. No particulars have been

divulged in the application. Even, while in the witness box as PW-4, the

prosecutrix had not given any such detail. Even though, it is the claim of

the prosecution that the accused was having abnormal sexual tendencies

and indulged in unnatural sex with the prosecutrix, but the same does not

stand established. There are vague allegations qua the same. Rather, while

in the witness box, the prosecutrix had stated that as a result of repeated

sexual acts of the accused, she developed serious infection in her anus.

Therein, she does not speak about the unnatural intercourse. Furthermore,

she has already stated in general about such intercourse to have been

committed by him, but no detail, as such, had been given. Though, to

establish its claim, the prosecution has examined Dr. Kanchan, who had

brought the admission record of the prosecutrix in Lajwanti Hospital and

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 25 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

Nursing Home, Jalandhar and has also examined Dr. S. Nath, who had

extended treatment to the prosecutrix as PW-1, but it is pertinent to

mention that though, the record relating to the infection of the anal area

has been proved through this witness and he has deposed about the anal

abscess, but it is pertinent to mention that Dr. S. Nath, while facing cross-

examination had stated that the reasons for infection in the anal canal may

be various. In the light of the same, it becomes all the more important that

the said witness had not stated about the infection, to be the outcome of

the sexual intercourse. Furthermore, even Dr. N.K. Sardana PW-9 has

been examined, who had given the Microscopic Histopath report of the

prosecutrix and he has proved the report Ex.PW1/B, wherein, he had

opined to be acute to chronic inflammatory reaction. This witness, in

cross-examination had stated that there can be multiple reasons for the

acute to chronic inflammatory reaction, as opined by him. In his

testimony also, no specific reason about this inflammatory reaction, to be

the result of unnatural sex, is evident. In the light of the same, the

aforesaid medical evidence, as such, proves to be of not much gain to the

prosecution.

21. Considering the same, it is further pertinent to mention that

as per the version of the prosecution, the prosecutrix had left the house of

the accused on 14.7.2014 and thereupon, an application Ex.PW4/E was

filed, which is dated 20.10.2014. It was down marked by the SSP, SAS

Nagar and it also shows the registration no. to be 2999/Peshi/SSP and the

date therein is 27.10.2014. Further, it has been registered with ASP on

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 26 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

28.10.2014. However, it is pertinent to mention that as per the version of

the prosecution itself, the FIR was registered on 28.2.2015 and thereafter,

the medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted on 10.4.2015.

Copy of the MLR has been proved as Ex.PW8/C. It was in pursuance of

the conducting of the medical examination that the swabs were taken and

the same were sent for analysis. The report of the Chemical Examiner has

been proved as Ex.PW8/B. It reflects spermatozoa to have been detected

in the two vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix. It was only thereupon that the

opinion Ex.PW8/d was given by Dr. Neena Garg PW-8, about the

possibility of sexual intercourse cannot be ruled out. Considering this

medical evidence coming on record, it is pertinent to mention that as per

the version of the prosecution, the prosecutrix had gone away from the

house of the accused on 14.7.2014 and even, the prosecutrix, while facing

cross-examination had stated that after 14.7.2014, accused did not

perform any sexual act with her. Meaning thereby, after this date, at all,

the accused, in any circumstance, did not have any sexual accessibility

with her. Thus, considering the same, the detection of spermatozoa from

the vaginal swabs of the prosecutrix itself establish about the prosecutrix

to be having sexual accessibility with some person other than the accused.

This probability, all the more, gains momentum, as no DNA analysis have

been got done, even though, it has been so referred by the concerned

doctor, who had conducted the medical examination. Thus, there is lack of

scientific evidence to connect the accused with the wrong doing. Thus, in

any case, the spermatozoa so detected from the swabs of the prosecution,
(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 27 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

do not stand connected to the accused. In the light of the same, even if,

the plea of live in relationship is taken by the accused, in his statement u/s

313 Cr.P.C. (though he stated only for 5 days), is taken into consideration,

then at the maximum, it can be held that the prosecutrix was the

consenting party to the questioned act. The consensual relationship,

obviously will not substitute the offence u/s 376 IPC and the same stands

irrefutably falsified.

22. In the light of the aforesaid testimonies, the prosecution, as

such, has failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond shadow of

reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point 'A' formulated aforesaid, stands

answered against the prosecution.

23. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion is that the

prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused, as per the

demanding degree of proof and therefore, the case of the prosecution, as

such, cannot be termed to be free from doubt. Thus, extending benefit of

doubt, accused Surinderjit Singh Rana is acquitted of the charges levelled

against him. File be consigned to the Record Room.

Pronounced.
03.02.2017. [Archana Puri]
Sessions Judge,
Vikas SAS Nagar (Mohali).

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 28 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

Present: Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Accused Surinderjit Singh Rana on bail with counsel Sh.
Jarnail Singh Advocate.

Sh. Jarnail Singh Advocate has appeared and filed power of

attorney on behalf of the accused.
At this stage, it has come to my notice that charge was
required to be framed u/s 495 instead of 494 IPC and therefore, it requires
amendment. The Public Prosecutor as well as the accused have given the
statement that they have no objection if the charge is amended, at this
stage.
In the light of the same, the charge, as such, is now amended
and has been framed us/ 495, 376 IPC. After typing of the charge, it has
been read over and explained to the accused, to which, he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
The Public Prosecutor and the accused have also given the
statement that they do not want to re-examine and re-call any witness of
the prosecution after the amendment of the charge and also further that the
evidence already brought on record, be taken into consideration.
Accused closed his defence evidence, vide separate
statement.
Arguments heard. For orders, to come up after lunch.

[Archanan Puri]
Sessions Judge, Mohali,
3.2.2017.

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.
 29 State Vs. Surinderjit Singh Rana

Present: Sh. Gurdeep Singh, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Accused Surinderjit Singh Rana on bail with counsel Sh.
Jarnail Singh Advocate.

File taken up again after lunch session. Vide my separate

detailed judgment of today, accused Surinderjit Singh Rana is acquitted of

the charges levelled against him. He is ordered to execute personal bonds

in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C,

thereby undertaking to appear before the Hon'ble High Court, as and

when, said Court issues notice, in respect of any appeal or revision etc,

filed against this judgment. Bonds furnished, which are accepted and

attested. File be consigned to the Record Room.

Pronounced.
03.02.2017. [Archana Puri]
Sessions Judge,
SAS Nagar (Mohali).

(Archana Puri)
S.J., Mohali.
UID No. PB0017.