ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 2.4.1987 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- under section 363 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 3 months. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo RI for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- under section 366 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for six months.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that Veena - prosecutrix was studying in 8th Class in Government High School, Prem Nagar, Karnal but she failed. After that she got employment in Bhagson Pharmaceutical Factory, Karnal. Her sister Sunita was also employed there. On 1.10.1986 at about 8.00 A.M. she left her house to attend her duty in the factory. The appellant followed her on a Viki (Moped). When she reached behind the Liberty Foot-wear then appellant obstructed her and forced her to sit on the Viki. Thereafter she tried to raise alarm but the appellant threatened her to kill. Due to fear she sat on the Viki, and the appellant took her to NDRI and from there she was taken to village Newal where she was kept in the house of Mange Ram. They stayed there for two nights and the appellant raped her. Thereafter she was taken to village Gonda. She was also kept there for two nights at the house of Sadhu Singh and was raped. On 5.10.1986 the appellant was apprehended by Sube Singh SI, Incharge, Police Post, Ram Nagar, Karnal. The prosecutrix was recovered from his custody. After completion of the investigation the challan was presented before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal who committed the case to the Court of Sessions as it was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. On commitment, the case was assigned to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. The appellant was charge-sheeted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) WHEN the appellant was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, he denied simplicitor and pleaded false implication. He also pleaded that Veena was found missing from her house and her father suspected her liaison with him and got registered a false case against him. She came back on 4.10.1986 and was pressurised to involve him in this false case. Initially she did not agree but ultimately she succumbed to the pressure. It was also pleaded that she had written letters to him and she loved him. The appellant also pleaded that the prosecutrix has sent him greeting card and the address on the envelope was in her handwriting. He further stated that she had written some letters on different occasions to him.