CHANDER PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Chander Pal was convicted for offence under Sections 376(2)(f), 363, 342 and 506 IPC by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon vide judgment/order dated 2.3.2001. For offence under Secession 376(2)(f) IPC, he was sentenced to 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two years. For offence under Section 363 IPC, he was further sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. For offence under Section 342 IPC, he was further sentenced to RI for six months and fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month and for offence under Section 506 IPC, he was further sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/ -. In default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, present appeal had been filed through Jail.

(2.) PROSECUTION case against the present Appellant is that on 25.2.2000; at about 12.30 p.m. prosecutrix, (her name withheld) aged about 10 years and a student of 4th Class was in her house in village Jatshahpur, Police Station Pataudi. Then accused -Appellant finding her alone, came there and forcibly took her to his house. He put her on a cot, forcibly broke open the string of her salvar and committed sexual intercourse. When she started weeping, accused -Appellant threatened her to keep quiet, otherwise she will be killed. When the prosecutrix started bleeding, the accused shunted her out from the room and himself ran way in the fields. Prosecutrix went to her house. When her mother Meena came, she narrated this incident to her mother, who then informed her husband's brothers Krishan Kumar and Shiv Shankar. They brought her to Hailymandi Police Station. Then case was registered. Accused was arrested. After investigation, he was challaned. He faced trial. The case of the prosecution was found to be proved. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) THE case of the prosecution was proved by medical evidence and statements of the prosecutrix, who appeared as PW -2, her mother Meena PW3 and her uncle Krishan Kumar PW4. The age of the prosecutrix was proved by PW11 Nand Kumar, School Head Teacher that she was less than 12 years of age. As such, there is no infirmity in the order of the trial Court as far as conviction of the Appellant for offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC and for other offences is concerned. Appeal as against conviction as such, is dismissed.