KISHORI LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 9.3.1998/order of sentence dated 10.3.1998 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Kishori Lal to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of the same to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 376 of IPC.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY put facts of the prosecution case are that the prosecutrix X (name of the victim is not being indicated to prevent her social victimisation in view of Premia alias Preen Parkash v. State of Rajasthan, 2008(4) RCR(Crl.) 539 : 2008(5) RAJ 490 (SC), is married to Kashmiri Lal. On 6.10.1996 at about 8:30/8:45 P.M., when Kashmiri Lal returned from his day long toil, he asked his wife to prepare tea for him. The tea leaves and sugar etc., being not available in the house, she went to the shop of Shiv Dyal. She brought the same. Again she went to fetch milk. It had grown dark by such time. She proceeded through periphery. The accused, who was standing under the Neem tree enquired as to where she was going. On her disclosure that she was moving to bring milk, he caught hold of her from her hand and dragged her towards 'Kup' (rick) and gagged her mouth by stuffing her scarf, which drowned her shrieks into silence. He broke open the string of her salwar and committed rape on her. On returning home, she disclosed this occurrence to her husband. By that time, it was too late. On the next morning, when they were on their way to the police station, they came across ASI Azad Singh, who recorded her statement on its basis,,the formal FIR was registered. This ASI got her medico legally examined, visited the place of occurrence, prepared the rough site plan showing the place of occurrence, recorded statements of witnesses. The accused was produced by Sukhwinder Singh Ex-Sarpanch on 8.10.1996. He was also got medico legally examined. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial of the accused.

(3.) WHEN examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence. He has put forth that "I have a dispute with the prosecutrix on a common wall. The Prosecutrix demanded money, which I refused and on that account, I have been falsely involved by the prosecutrix." In his defence, he examined, Sukhwinder Singh DW1, Dula Ram DW2 and closed his defence evidence.