HEM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half years under Section 376 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for two months for offences under Section 506 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioner committed rape on prosecutrix PW3 Smt. Sumitra on 9.8.2008 around 6 P.M. in the evening. It was alleged that on 9.8.2009 three persons namely Parkash Chand, Hem Parkash (accused-appellant) and Chattar Singh visited the house of prosecutrix. Chattar Singh left the place and accused sat in the courtyard and asked from her the whereabouts of her son Khem Chand, whereupon she informed him that he had gone to Theog. Thereafter the accused got up and left the house. She also got up and proceeded towards her fields through a path which leads through a jungle to fetch grass and leaves for her cattle. When she had walked a distance of about 200 metres from her house, the accused-appellant caught hold her from her arm and dragged to the side of the path. The prosecutrix protested and when she asked as to what he was doing, he threw her on the ground and threatened her and told her that he was looking for a chance like this for the last so many days to satisfy his sexual lust. When she protested and cried, the appellant gagged her mouth with his hand and broke the string of her salwar and raped her. Before proceeding to the fields, the prosecutrix had asked her daughter Madhu to come there after some time and when she (Madhu) reached the spot, the entire incident was narrated to her by the prosecutrix. It is also alleged that before leaving the scene of occurrence, the accused had threatened her with dire consequences and told her that in case she disclosed these facts to anybody, he would finish her. He also told her that he would again return to satisfy his lust.

(3.) According to the prosecution, the accused had torn her shirt at the time when he was committing rape on her. The prosecutrix informed her husband about the incident on phone but did not report to the police due to fear. Ultimately, report Ext.PW3/A was lodged with the police on 11.8.2008, on the basis of which First Information Report Ext.PW13/A was registered. Application Ext.PW2/A was moved by the police for medical examination of the prosecutrix who was accompanied by PW9 lady Constable Meena and was medically examined by PW2 Dr. Seema Rani, who issued MLC Ext.PW2/B. The accused was also medically examined and his MLC is Ext.PW1/A. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory is Ext.PX which discloses that there was no blood or semen on pubic hair, combed public hair, vaginal smear slides and urine sample on shirt of Sumitra and underwear of Hem Parkash. Human blood was also found somewhere on the salwar but there was no semen, but the blood was insufficient for matching. The learned trial Court on consideration of the evidence on record proceeded to convict the petitioner for offences, as alleged. To reach this conclusion, the learned trial Court relied upon the evidence of PW3 prosecutrix, PW4 Madhu and the attending circumstances. The learned Court did not rely upon the medical evidence on record but has given credence to the evidence of PW4 Madhu.