IPC ASSIGNMENT

TOPIC- GURCHARAN SINGH VS STATE OF

HARYANA,13 SEPTEMBER, 1972

Submitted to: Sheefali Dixit Mam

Submitted by: Mannat Sarao

Registration number- 11614590

Section – L1601
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Through this acknowledgement I would like to show my gratitude towards our teacher who
assigned us this project and gave us an opportunity to learn more and something out of the
box that had added up a different and new concept to our knowledge. I would even like to
thank all those people who helped us completing our project well in time and hereby we were
able to give our project in time. Thank you everyone for their support.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Serial No. Index Page No.

1. Introduction 4

2. Facts 5-6

3. Sections involved 6-7

4. Contentions 7-8

5. Cases discussed 8-9

6. Held 9

7. Critical analysis 10

Case GURCHARAN SINGH VS STATE OF HARYANA,13

SEPTEMBER, 1972
3
Introduction
Sex is understood as the biological difference between men and women. Even though this
difference should not matter to how people are seen and treated, the distinction between both
is assigned through by gender and does make a difference. Gender violence is a term for wide
range of violations, which consist of both the physical and the sexual, from example ranging
from sexual assault in society to sexual abuse in prison. Women are disproportionately the
victims of gender violence, which happens in different forms in different social contexts
throughout the world.
Rape is a stigma which exists in the society from a long time. The dictionary meaning of
word rape is “the ravishing or violation of a woman.” Rape is a highly gendered violent
behavior whereas the majority of the sexually violent perpetrators are men and the majority
of their victims are women. Rape, the most common form of violence against women has
been a part of human culture and is a profound violation of woman’s bodily integrity and can
be a form of torture. While the physical reality of rape has been unchanged over time and
place however, the perceptions, ideas and laws about rape have changed.
Rape is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim’s most
cherished of the fundamental rights, normally, the right to life contained in Article 21.
Referring to the pitiable condition of women in society Mr. Justice S. Ahmad observed that
“unfortunately, a woman in our country, belongs to a class or group of society who are in a
disadvantaged position on account of several social barriers and impediments and have
therefore, been victims of tyranny at the hands of men with whom they, unfortunately, under
the Constitution “enjoy, equal status”. “Women also have the right to life and liberty; they
also have the right to be respected and treated as equal citizens. Their honour and dignity
cannot be touched or violated. They also have the right to lead an honorable and peaceful
life”.
Rape in India is a cognizable offence. There are many provisions in various Acts. The word
rape is legally defined u/s 375 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It defines the rape and also
prescribes its punishment. The present case is one such case of a girl who was kidnapped,
abducted and raped. The accused persons were charged under section 366,368 and 376 of IPC
and were convicted for 3 to 4 years for the said offences.

Court-Before the Supreme Court of India

Bench- Dua, I.D.

Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 2661, 1973 SCR (1) 19

Facts

4
 Smt. Paramajit Kaur (prosecutrix), a young girl under 16 years of age went out in the
evening of November 26, 1967 to case herself.
 When she' was returning home Surjit Kaur and Phullan met her and induced her to
visit Dalip Singh's house so that she may be given nice clothes. On reaching Dalip
Singh's house she was handed over to him. By then it had grown dark.
 Dalip Singh threatened her- with a knife and asked her to accompany him. He took
her to the appellant's baithak (sitting room) closeby and after handing her over to the
appellant, Dalip Singh went away.
 The appellant threatened Paramjit Kaur with a pistol and took her to his fields outside
the village and in the room where his tube-well Machine was installed he committed
rape on her twice.
 After a couple of hours Sanjha Ram arrived there. The appellant then went away
leaving Paramjit Kaur in Sanjha Ram's custody. During the appellant's absence Sanjha
Rain also committed rape on her.
 The whole night she was kept in that room where the appellant and Sanjha Ram both
committed rape on her
 Sanjha Ram used to take Paramjit Kaur to the sugarcane field during day time and
bring her back to the room during the night. Sanjha raped her even in the sugarcane
field.
 In the meantime, when Paramjit Kaur did not return home on November 26, 1967, her
uncle, Shingara Singh, her father Avtar Singh and some others began searching for
her in their village and also in the other near by villages. Having failed in their search,
first information report was lodged on the morning of November 29, 1967 by
Shingara Singh, younger brother of Avtar Singh, with the police station Ladwa, about
two miles away from village Nawarsi, where Paramjit Kaur resided with her parents.
 The offence mentioned in the F.I.R. was under ss. 363/366, I.P.C. Suspicion was cast
in the F.I.R. on Dalip Singh, his son Trilok Singh, his wife Surjit Kaur, Gurcharan
Singh, appellant and his wife because Paramjit Kaur used to go to their house which
was located in the neighborhood.
 The same day viz : November 29, Anokhi Singh (P.W. 6) felt the presence of some
persons in Gurcharan Singh, appellant's sugarcane field which is near to his own
sugarcane field and conveyed this information to Col. Harnam Singh, (P.W. 4).
Thereupon Col. Harnam Singh, along with Jagjit Singh, Gian Singh, Rachpal Singh
Chima, Rachhpal Singh Nagra, Gian Chand, Kishan Singh and Anokh Singh, the
informant, went to the sugarcane field of Gurcharan Singh, where, they saw Paramjit
Kaur and Sanjha Ram.
 The latter tried to escape, but was secured. Paramjit Kaur narrated the whole story of
what had happened since the evening of November 26, 1967.
 Paramjit Kaur was got examined by lady doctor K. Kaushalya, Medical Officer, Civil
Hospital, Karnal at about 7 p.m. who found a tear on the posterior margin of her
hymen which bled on examination. In the lady doctor's opinion rape had been
committed on her about three or four days prior to the examination.

5
  In the doctor's opinion the healing process of the hymen was- going on. She also
examined her for finding her age. X-ray examination for determining the age of the
prosecutrix was also taken by Dr. L. R. Sardana, Radiologist in the same hospital.
According to both Dr. Sardana and Dr. Kaushalya the age of the prosecutrix could be
between 15 and 16 years. She, was clearly under 16 years. The prosecutrix appeared
as P.W. 3 and narrated the whole story in a straightforward manner.
 Lady doctor K. Kaushalya's statement recorded in the committing magistrate's court
was brought on the record of the Sessions Court where she was also further examined
and cross- examined.
 The two courts below that is Sessions Court and High Court have accepted the
prosecution version and convicted the appellant for both offerings viz : under ss. 366
and 376, I.P.C.
 The Trial Court had acquitted Phullan and Surjit Kaur but convicted Gurcharan Singh,
appellant, under ss.366 and 376, I.P.C. sentencing him under the former section to
rigorous imprisonment for three years and under the latter section to rigorous
imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs. 200, with further rigorous imprisonment
for six months in the event of default in payment of fine. The substantive sentences
were to run concurrently. Sanjha Ram was convicted under s. 376, I.P.C. and
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 200, with further
rigorous imprisonment for six months in case of default in payment of fine. He was
also convicted under s. 368,I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two
years. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. Dalip Singh was convicted
under s. 366, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine
of Rs. 200 with further rigorous imprisonment for six months in the event of default.
 On appeal a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld these
convictions and sentences.
 Then the appellant reached the Supreme Court under article 136 of the Constitution.

Sections and provisions involved

Indian Penal Code

Section 362 Abduction.—Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any
person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.

Section 366 Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.—
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing
it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that
she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; 1[and
whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority
or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that

6
she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse
with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid].

Section 368 Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted

person.—Whoever, knowing that any person has been kidnapped or has been abducted,
wrongfully conceals or confines such person, shall be punished in the same manner as if he
had kidnapped or abducted such person with the same intention or knowledge, or for the
same purpose as that with or for which he conceals or detains such person in confinement.

Section 376 Punishment for rape.—

(1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than
seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall
also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of
age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years or with fine or with both: Provided that the court may, for
adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.

(2) Whoever,—

(a) being a police officer commits rape—

(i) within the limits of the police station to which he is appointed; or

(ii) in the premises of any station house whether or not situated in the police station to which
he is appointed; or

(iii) on a woman in his custody or in the custody of a police officer subordinate to him; or

(b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on a
woman in his custody as such public servant or in the custody of a public servant subordinate
to him; or

(c) being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand home or other place of custody
established by or under any law for the time being in force or of a woman’s or children’s
institution takes advantage of his official position and commits rape on any inmate of such
jail, remand home, place or institution; or

(d) being on the management or on the staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official
position and commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or

(e) commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or

(f) commits rape on a woman when she is under twelve years of age; or

(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: Provided

7
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. 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 rape
within the meaning of this sub-section. Explanation 2.—“Women’s or children’s institution”
means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected woman or children
or a widows’ home or by any other name, which is established and maintained for the
reception and care of woman or children. Explanation 3.—“Hospital” means the precincts of
the hospital and includes the precincts of any institution for the reception and treatment of
persons during convalescence or of persons requiring medical attention or rehabilitation.]

Contentions:
Appellant
 The first objection raised on behalf of the appellant against his prosecution and
conviction under s. 366, I.P.C. is that kidnaping and abduction of the prosecutrix was
complete as soon as she was induced by the two ladies to accompany them. Hence
Gurcharan should not be convicted under section 366, IPC.
 The counsel contended that there was no question of the commission of rape in this
case and for that purpose he has tried to seek support from the medical evidence.
There being no marks of violence on the private parts or elsewhere on the person of
the prosecutrix, there could be no offence of rape on her.
 The point most seriously canvassed in this Court on behalf of the appellant was that
the solitary statement of the prosecutrix without corroboration in material particulars
is not enough to sustain the conviction of the appellant. The learned counsel appearing
for Gurcharan Singh contended that Dalip Singh and Sanjha Ram may have rightly
convicted. But so far as the appellant is concerned the evidence against him is neither
reliable nor sufficient for bringing home to him the offence of abduction and rape
beyond reasonable doubt.
 It is well-settled that the prosecutrix cannot be considered as an accomplice and,
therefore, her-testimony cannot be equated with that of an accomplice in an offence.
As a rule of prudence, however, court normally looks for some corroboration of her
testimony so as to satisfy its conscience that she is telling the truth and that the person
accused of rape on her has not been falsely implicated. The matter is not res integra
and this Court has, on more occasions than one, considered and enunciated the legal
position.

Respondent
8
  The counsel contented that the real gravamen of the offence here being that
Gurcharan Singh, appellant, induced the prosecutrix by threatening her with a pistol to
go with him to the room in his fields where his tube-well was fixed and there he
committed rape on her, Section 362, I.P.C., which defines abduction lays down that
whoever by force compels or by any deceitful means induces any person to go, from
any place is said to abduct that person. The, appellant's case clearly falls within this
definition.
 That non presence of any marks of violence does not deny that rape did not happen
because that would merely suggest want of violent resistance on the part of the
prosecutrix, which is wholly inconsequential when the prosecutrix is under 16 years
of age. Absence of violent or stiff resistance in the present case may as well suggest,
helpless surrender to the inevitable due to sheer timidity. In any event her consent
would not take the case out of the definition of rape. Where a person on whom rape is
committed is under 16 years of age, even consent is immaterial.
 The recovery of the prosecutrix and Sanjha Ram from the appellant's sugarcane field,
her complaint to Harnam Singh and others about the abduction and rape and the later
recovery of some broken pieces of bangles from the said field and the medical
evidence, in our opinion, fully corroborate the testimony of the prosecutrix which
even without corroboration seems to us to be impressive enough to render it safe for
sustaining the appellant's conviction.
 Nothing at all has been elicited from, her lengthy cross-examination by more than one
defence counsel so as to shake her credibility.
 Her recovery virtually from the custody of Sanjha Ram has been proved not only by
Harnam Singh (P-W4) but also by Pyara Singh (P.W. 5) and Anokh Singh (P.W. 6)
and we do not find any cogent ground for doubting this part of the prosecution case.

Cases discussed
State v. Gopichand A.I.R. 1961 Bom. 282
According to this decision, when a minor girl was kidnapped by A from the lawful custody of
her husband, her subsequent taking away by B, who was no, party to the original kidnapping,
from the unlawful custody of A, for illicit intercourse, does not amount to kidnapping and B
is not guilty under s. 366.

Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan [1952] S.C.R. 377

The court observed that now a woman who has been raped is not an accomplice. If she was
ravished she is the victim of an outrage. If she consented there is no. offence unless she is a
married woman, in which case questions of adultery may arise. But adultery presupposes
consent and so is not on the same footing as rape. In the case of a girl who is below the age of
consent, her consent will not matter so far as the offence of rape is concerned, but if she
consented her testimony will naturally be as suspect as that of an accomplice. So also in the
case of unnatural offences. But in all these cases a large volume of case law has grown up

9
which treats the evidence of the complainant somewhat along the same lines as accomplice
evidence though often for widely different reasons and the position now reached is that the
rule about corroboration has hardened into one of law. But it is important to understand
exactly what the rule is and what the expression 'hardened into a rule of law' means.

Janardan Tewari v. State of Bihar 1958 S.C. 143. (2) [1971] 3 S.C.C. 927
It was observed "We are satisfied that this girl was raped and we have only to find out who
the culprits were. In this connection, the law is that the evidence of the prosecutrix must be
corroborated in some measure to connect the accused. Enough corroboration is available in
this case from the evidence of Bir Kumar who gave the information to his grand mother
immediately after the incident and also deposed on oath in Court. Bir Kumar Singh is a
young boy aged 12 years and therefore, we have to be cautious about accepting his testi-
mony. We have read his evidence. Bir Kumar Singh was closely questioned to find out
whether he understood nature of evidence, and whether he was capable of giving answers to
the questions put to him. The Sessions Judge was satisfied that Bir Kumar was a competent
witness and his statement struck us as being rue."

Held
 The real gravamen of the offence was that Gurcharan Singh, appellant, induced the
prosecutrix by threatening her with a pistol to go with him to the room in his fields
where his tube-well was fixed and there he committed rape on her. Section 362, I.P.C,
which defines abduction lays down that whoever by force compels or by any deceitful
means induces any person to go, from any place is said to abduct that person. The,
appellant's case clearly falls within this definition. This constitutes abduction
punishable under s. 362 and 366, I.P.C.
 Under s. 375, I.P.C. read with the Explanation, where a person on whom rape is
committed is under 16 years of age, her consent is immaterial and penetration is
sufficient to constitute the offence. In the present case, mere absence of marks of
violence on the person of the victim is immaterial because, that would merely suggest
want of violent resistance on her part which is wholly inconsequential since she is
under 16 years of age. Absence of violent or stiff resistance in the present case may as
well suggest, helpless surrender to the inevitable due to sheer timidity.
 In cases of sexual offences the prosecutrix is not considered as an accomplice and her
testimony is not equated with that of an accomplice in an offence. It is only as a rule
of prudence that courts normally look for some corroboration of her testimony so as to
satisfy their conscience that she is telling the truth and that the person accused of rape
on her is not being falsely implicated. In the present case, the, testimony of the victim
by it-self is impressive enough to render it safe for sustaining the appellant's
conviction. Moreover, the rescue of the victim from the appellant's sugarcane field,
her complaint soon thereafter to the prosecution witnesses about the abduction and the
rape, the later recovery of some broken pieces of bangles from the scene of
occurrence, and the medical evidence, fully corroborate testimony.

10
  The court held that the appellant is a Lumbardar of his village and has also officiated
as Sarpanch for some time. Keeping in view the responsible position held by the
appellant , the sentence imposed is by no means unduly harsh. Hence the appeal was
dismissed.

Critical analysis
It can be concluded from this case that where a person on whom rape is committed is under
16 years of age even consent of person is immaterial and penetration is sufficient to prove
rape. Supreme Court has rightly convicted the appellant for both the offences. So far as the
question of sentence was concerned it is known that the appellant was a Lumbardar of his
village and had also officiated as Sarpanch for some time. Keeping in view the responsible
position held by the appellant the sentence imposed is by no means unduly harsh. The appeal
accordingly failed and was dismissed. The appellant was bound to surrender to his bail bond
to serve out the sentence.
During the earlier times the sentence of punishment under section 376 normally ranged from
one to ten years, where on an average most convicts used to get away with three to four years
of rigorous imprisonment with a very small fine as so happened in this case. The
Amendment 1983 has brought about some important changes in the existing laws of rape as a
response to the growing public opinion demanding more stringent anti rape laws. It amends
Section 376 IPC and enhances the punishment of rape it also provides enhanced punishment
of minimum of 10 years of imprisonment for police officers or staff of jail, the remand homes
or other places of custody established by law. 
Law remains but the number of victims (including minor) continues to increase destroying
the very soul of the helpless women. Severe and certain punishment in a time bound manner,
of the rapists has some deterrent value. Arrest alone may not constitute a strong societal
response. Lengthy prison sentences have some behaviour-altering deterrent values.

Suggestions
 Without proper implication law is nothing. This is the reason police reforms is most
needed to stop the violence against women. Not only that police reforms is necessary
because in most of the cases when a rape victims goes to police station to file a FIR,
they are often face many offensive questions by the police. So their mentality should
be changed and proper training should be given to them on how to handle such types
of sensitive situation.

 Boys’ education should be needed from school level. They should be given the
education to respect women. Elimination of gender biasness is most required things to
remove rape from our society in future.

 Sexual harrasment panels should be established in universities, corporations,

hospitals, or any large institutions to evaluate cases privately and keep the victim

11
 anonymous. Some lewd gestures and actions are mostly ignored because women don’t
have a proper place to complain or are too scared to reveal as they don’t want to
escalate the issue. The panel can give insight to identify any negative approach
towards women and can prevent the crime from occuring in the first place. This
mechanism has the ability to scare the perpetuators and their criminal instinct can be
kept in check more often.
 Gps trackers on autos and cabs, and issuing orders to companies to provide secured
travel for women who work late night.
 Educating people in villages, and underdeveloped urban areas with thought provoking
documentaries and sensible meetings by women N.G.O’s can change attitude towards
women in society. Any change must occur from the grassroot level. 

We should raise our voice whenever we will find any wrong happening against women;
because social transformation start with us, we are the society, we are the power and as we
see in the past our voice can make a difference.

12