MAHINDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment/order dated 01.10.2003, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad (for short 'trial Court'), convicting and sentencing appellant Mahinder to rigourous imprisonment for five years with fine amounting to Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for two months, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'); rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine amounting to Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for one month, under Section 452, IPC; and, rigorous imprisonment for one year, under Section 506, IPC, are under attack in this criminal appeal brought by the above named convict-appellant. Put as concisely as one may, case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 05/06.05.2002 prosecutrix, a widow, was sleeping in her house. At about 1.00 A.M. on 06.05.2002, the appellant entered her house, gagged her mouth and threatened to kill her if an alarm was raised, unstringed her ''salvar'' and had coitus with her against her wish and consent. Alarm, raised by the prosecutrix, attracted her father-in-law Dharam Singh (PW-8) and Sarup to the spot who caught the appellant. In the process to escape, the appellant also received some injuries. On 06.05.2002, at about 1:30 P.M., prosecutrix (PW-7) accompanied by her father-in-law Dharam Singh (PW-8) took the appellant before ASI Tek Chand. Prosecutrix handed over to the Investigating Officer a written complaint i.e. Exhibit PE based whereupon a formal First Information Report (for short 'FIR') was recorded. During investigation statements of witnesses were recorded. The prosecutrix was medico legally examined by Dr. Manjula Mishra (PW-1). The appellant was arrested. He was medico legally examined by Dr. H.K. Mishra (PW-2).

(2.) On completion of investigation, appellant was challaned and was charged by learned trial Court under Sections 452, 376 and 506 IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW-7, Dharam Singh as PW-8, Dr. Manjula Mishra as PW-1, Dr. H.K. Mishra as PW-2, ASI Tek Chand as PW-11 besides examining formal witnesses, namely HC Rajinder Singh as PW-3, Constable Rajbir Singh as PW-4, HC Narender Singh as PW-5, Manoj Kumar draftsman as PW-6, SI Bharat Singh as PW-9 and Constable Suresh Kumar as PW-10.

(3.) All the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution were put to the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). He denied all the circumstances as false and incorrect and reiterated plea of his innocence and false implication. He examined Bali as DW-1, Lakha Ram as DW-2 and HC Bir Singh as DW-3 in his evidence.