DHARAMVIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dharamvir (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has preferred this appeal against judgment of conviction dated 16.2.1999 and order of sentence dated 18.2.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamal by virtue of which he was convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) Succinctly, the facts required to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal are that on 3.3.1995, the prosecutrix alongwith Chandro and Tejbir Singh met the police party headed by Mohinder Pal Assistant Sub-Inspector at Salwan Chowk and got recorded her statement to the effect that on the fateful day, she was going to her field for bringing green fodder and at about 11.00 a.m. when she reached near the field of Chander, all of a sudden accused Dharamvir came out of the field and took her in his grip and made her to lie down in the field of wheat crop. She resisted to get herself freed but to no use and ultimately the accused committed rape upon her against her wishes. On hearing noise, Chandro and Tejbir, who were cutting green fodder in the nearby field came to the spot but on seeing them, the accused fled away from the spot. On the basis of this statement, FIR was registered and the prosecutrix was got medico-legally examined. The Investigating Officer prepared the rough site plan of the place of occurrence and took into possession pieces of broken bangles and one artificial ear-ring. The appellant was arrested and after completion of investigation, challan was presented in the court.

(3.) The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC the appellant denied all the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication. He took the stand that Deep Chand, husband of the prosecutrix, had to pay him Rs.2,000 and one day prior to the alleged date of occurrence, when he (appellant) had gone to the house of Deep Chand for demanding money, the later refused to give the money and rather started abusing him and during the exchange of hot words, Deep Chand and the prosecutrix threatened to teach him a lesson and'as such he was falsely implicated in this case. He also examined Ram Chander as DWl in his defence.