MAN SINGH THAPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 10.12.2012 and 14.12.2012 respectively wherein the appellant stood convicted under Section 376 of the IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo, SI for two months.

(2.) THIS is an unfortunate incident. The prosecutrix is the daughter of the appellant. The prosecutrix (PW -4) was studying in the 6th standard at the relevant time. She was living with her father. Her sister was also living in the same household. Their mother had died five years ago. Their father had been married for the second time; the prosecutrix and her sister were born out of their father's second marriage. On 19.08.2011, a complaint was lodged at PS Mandwali which was to the effect that the father of the victim had committed rape upon her on several dates. She had been beaten by him due to which she had not disclosed the incident on an earlier occasion. The version of the prosecutrix (PW -4) has been supported by her younger sister (PW -3). The victim had been medically examined. Her MLC had been proved as Ex.PW -9/A. Her hymen was not intact.

(3.) ON behalf of the appellant, arguments have been addressed in detail. The first argument addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that this is a case of false implication. All along, the defence of the appellant was that the victim was in love with a muslim boy namely Pappu and she was interested in marrying him. When her father objected, his daughter has falsely embroiled him in the present case. The second defence of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant is 70 years of age and he has an erectile dysfunction and he could not perform sexual act. This is a clear case of false implication. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon : 2012 ACR 3007 Narender Kumar Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and : 2009 Crl. LJ 3342 Pappu Vs. State of Delhi to support his arguments. In defence, the appellant had also produced three witnesses. DW -1 was his neighbor. DW -2 was his employee and DW -3 was related. Testimonies of these three witnesses was that the accused had a good reputation; his daughter has falsely implicated him; all of them had deposed that the prosecutrix was interested in marrying Pappu which was the bone of contention in the family which had led to the false implication of the appellant.