STATE OF H.P. Vs. KAUL RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 13.1.1999 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1997 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the accused Kaul Ram forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix some time in January/February 1996.

(3.) PW -4 Tej Singh states that he was informed by his wife that their daughter was carrying a pregnancy and that Kaul Singh is the father of the child. Kaul Singh admitted that he had had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Thereafter, he complained to the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. PW -5 Chet Ram is the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, who also happens to the uncle of the prosecutrix since he is married to the real sister of the mother of the prosecutrix. The accused was summoned before the Panchayat and admitted his fault and also admitted that he is the father of the child. These proceedings were signed by the accused. According to the father he had reported the matter to the police but the police came to the spot after 2 days. He admits that the matter was reported to the police after one month of the Panchayat being held. Before reporting the matter to the Panchayat the father waited for 10 -12 days. The accused had first confessed in front of his father when he was alone. He also admitted that he had filed a complaint Ext.PW -4/A, which was written by Rattan Dass. In this complaint, there was no allegation of rape. All that was alleged was that accused had illicit relations with the prosecutrix and she was pregnant because of these illicit relations. It was further alleged that the accused should take over the responsibility of the child.