AMRIT LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, dated March 31, 1997, in Sessions Trial No. 31-R/7 of 1995, whereby the appellant Amrit Lal, hereinafter referred to as an 'accused', has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of rupees 2,000/-. In case of default in the payment of fine, the accused is to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year. The accused has also been directed to pay rupees 5000/- as compensation to the victim.

(2.) Prem Kumari d/o Shri Achhar Singh, is resident of village Pangi. On July 9, 1994, Prem Kumari (PW-1) visited the house of Sukhdev to pay obeisance to 'Devta' who was brought to the house of Sukhdev on the same day from Kalpa. Amrit Lal accused, a resident of Kalpa, had accompanied the Devta from Kalpa to the house of Sukhdev in Pangi.

(3.) The prosecution case: In the early hours of the morning of July 10, 1994, at about 3.00 a.m., Prem Kumari left the house of Sukhdev to bring water for her grand-mother. Accused met her near the staircase of the house of Sukhdev. He dragged her to the fields and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her in the fields. Prem Kumari tried to free herself from the clutches of the accused but did not succeed. Accused subjected Prem Kumari to forcible sexual intercourse twice and thereafter, left her in the fields. Prem Kumari narrated the incident to her mother immediately thereafter. She also told her brother Vidya Dev (PW2) of the incident as also her uncle. Her brother and uncle approached the Pradhan of their Gram Panchayat who advised that the matter should be reported to the Police. Accordingly, First Information Report was recorded by prosecutrix Prem Kumari with Police Station, Reckong Peo at 9.30 p.m. on the same day. At the request of Police, prosecutrix Prem Kumari, was immediately examined by Dr. Suresh Bansal (PW6) on July 11, 1994. Dr. Bansal did not find any injury on the person of the prosecutrix. He opined that there was penetration/attempt of penetration of the (sic) vagina. The accused on committal, was charged for the offence punishable under Section 376, I.P.C. Accused claim trial.