BUDDHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A first information report (Ext. Ka -8) was lodged by the informant Vikram on 01.06.2011, at 8:00 p.m. in patwari circle Toli Bangarh, Kirti Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 376 IPC, taking recourse to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The application, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant Vikram in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal on 28.05.2011 and only thereafter the first information report was lodged on 01.06.2011. After the investigation, a charge sheet (Ext. Ka -10) against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376/511, 323, 504 and 506 IPC was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 376/511, 323, 504 and 506 IPC were framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PW 1 Kumari Pinki (victim), PW 2 Vaishali Devi (mother of the victim), PW 3 Vikram (informant, father of the victim), PW 4 Ramesh (brother of informant), PW 5 Dr. Satwant Kaur, Medical Officer and PW 6 Jabbar Singh Panwar (investigating officer) were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. He said that victim's grandmother picked up a quarrel with him and his wife which resulted in reconciliation but still he was falsely implicated in this case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal found the accused guilty of the offences for which he was charged. He was sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/ - under Section 376/511 IPC. He was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month each under Sections 323 and 506 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 26.03.2011, present criminal appeal was preferred.

(2.) PROSECUTION led the evidence through PW 1 Kumari Pinki/victim, She was 11 years of age when she came to depose. After conducting her voir dire and being satisfied with the fact that PW 1 was capable of understanding the things, the trial court permitted her examination. PW 1 said that on 28.05.2011, at 9:00 a.m., she went to wash her utensils on the bank of river. His father and his uncle were sitting in the village. Her mother went to jungle to fetch grass. Her sister was at home. When she was washing utensils on the bank of river, accused - appellant Buddhi alias Surendra came there. He inflicted blow of lathi (stick) on her shoulder. He also threw stone on the wrist of her arm. PW 1 also said that accused pressed her mouth and dragged her in the jungle, near temple. He disrobed her and also took off his wearing apparels. The accused took off the trousers of the victim. He also took out his lower wearing apparels. PW 1 was wearing pyjama (trousers). Accused laid on her (PW 1). Her mother had been to jungle to fetch the grass. The accused told PW 1 not to disclose the incident to anyone, otherwise, he will kill PW 1. When she cried, her mother came. Her mother pulled accused. He ran away thereafter. Had PW 1's mother not come to the place of occurrence, the accused would have committed rape with her. PW 1 along with her mother PW 2 went to their home. Many a people assembled at their home. PW 1 and PW 2 told PW 3 about the incident. PW 1 also explained the injuries caused to her. Her statement was recorded by the Magistrate. PW 1 also proved her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., in which she said as below:

(3.) IT cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that PW 1 was telling a lie. She narrated the incident in her examination -in -chief after her voir dire was conducted. She was cross -examined by defence at length. Not a single sentence has come in the cross -examination of PW 1 to indicate that she was telling a lie. The evidence tendered by PW 1 inspired confidence. There was no reason to disbelieve PW 1 (prosecutrix).