SAHIPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur on 31.3.1986 in S.T. No. 395 of 1985, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur under Section 376, 511 I.P.C. arising out of Crime No. 124 of 1984 whereby the accused appellant was convicted under Section 376, 511 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix submitted written report at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Saharanpur stating that on 8.4.1984 she was on her duty at the Rajkiya Netraheen Balika Vidyalaya, Court Road, Saharanpur. When she went on duty, she came to know that one girl named Sita is sick. She sent Chowkidar Sahipal (present appellant) to the doctor who brought some medicines for her. Medicines were administered to the girl but she could not recover. Then the accused appellant was sent to Doctor Mittal, who was the doctor of the institution. The doctor came, attended Sita, gave her injection and some medicines, and went away. After that informant remained with the sick girl until she felt better and went to sleep. Then, the informant came back to her own room. At about 1 O'clock in the night, the appellant knocked at her door and said that Sita has become serious and she should be attended. The informant opened the door at which the appellant entered her room, caught hold of her hand and bolted the door from inside. He was told to go out but he did not go out and started manhandling her due to which she sustained nail injuries on her hands and feet. She was pulled down on the bed. She became unconscious. On this, the appellant made her drink water. When she regained consciousness, she raised hue and cry and shouted to call Jai singh, who lived nearby. On this, the appellant came out of the room and the informant re-locked her room. But, the appellant again attempted to open the latch. Nobody else resided in the premises of the school, hence, she could not take the assistance of anybody else. Out of fear, she remained in the room and could not go out to see the ailing child. In the morning, in day light, she came out of her room. On 9.4.1984 she went to the residence of Harijan Kalyan Samaj Adhikari, Saharanpur where she was told that the officer had gone to Meerut and had not returned. The occurrence was told to the wife of the officer, who said that the matter could be looked after only by the officer himself. Due to ill health and fear, on 9.4.1984 she sent leave application and awaited the return of the Samaj Kalyan Adhikari. The informant being widow, whose elder daughter is 17 years old, son is 12 years old and younger daughter is seven years old, did not tell anybody about this occurrence due to fear and defamation. When the Samaj Kalyan Adhikari returned, she moved an application before him, who took action at his end and terminated the services of the appellant but still the appellant is threatening her that he would cause damage to the informant and her children. Hence, report was lodged.

(3.) Investigation of the matter was entrusted to S.O. Harish Chandra Singh (P.W.3), who recorded the statements of Pushpa and Kusum. On 22.4.1984 he inspected the spot and prepared the site plan which was proved as Ext. Ka-2. On 30.4.1984 he apprehended the accused Sahipal, submitted the charge sheet and proved it as Ext. Ka-3. The prosecution examined as many as four witnesses. P.W. 1 is Kusum who is said to have heard shrieks of the victim. P.W. 2 is Pushpa Devi (the victim) who has proved her written report as Ext. Ka-1. P.W. 3 is S.O. Harish Chandra Singh, whose evidence has been discussed. P.W. 4 is Head Constable Bechi Singh who prepared the chik report which was proved as Ext. Ka-4. This witness further scribed the G.D. and proved its copy as Ext. Ka-5.