STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. MANGAT RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the State is seeking reversal of the judgment dated 5-1-1998 of the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr rendered in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 1995, whereby Respondents, who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Smt. Sheela Devi, Bua (aunt) of PW-1 Pushpa Devi, is married to accused Chuni Lal. Chuni Lal used to sell needi and cigarettes etc. from his house. Paras Ram (PW-5) sent the prosecutrix to buy beedi from the house of accused Chuni Lal. She went to the house of accused Chuni Lal, his younger brother Mangat Ram, accused No. 1 was standing in the courtyard of the house. The prosecutrix told him that she intended to buy beedi. Accused No. 1 Mangat Ram took her to a room in his house. He bolted the door from inside. She raised hue and cry, however, Mangat Ram gagged her mouth with the help of handkerchief. She was thrown on a cot and thereafter he untied the string of her salwar and then committed sexual intercourse forcibly. Thereafter, Pushpa Devi returned to her house without purchasing bundle of beedi. She did not narrate this incident to anybody out of fear. Prosecutrix again went to the house of Chuni Lal to see her Bua, namely, Sheela Devi after five/six days of the first incident. Chuni Lal, Respondent No. 2, alongwith his wife was sitting in the courtyard of his house. Sheela Devi's son started weeping inside the room. Sheela Devi went inside the room. Pushpa Devi attempted to depart but Chuni Lal caught hold of her arm and she raised voice for calling her Bua, but she did not respond. Accused Chuni Lal caught hold of her (Pushpa Devi) and took her inside another room. When Pushpa Devi tried to raise alarm, her mouth was gagged by Chuni Lal and thereafter he pushed and threw Pushpa Devi on the floor arid then untied the string of her salwar and then committed rape on her. She went with her father PW-2 Devi Ram to lodge first information report, i.e. Ex. PW-1/A. She was subjected to medical examination on 25-8-1994. Accused were arrested and they were also medically examined by the doctor at Community Health Centre, Kumarsain. The matter was investigated by the police and the challan was put up in the Court after completing codal formalities, under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) Prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses in support of its case. Accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They have pleaded that they have been implicated falsely. Three witnesses were examined by the accused in their defence. The trial Court acquitted the Respondents-accused. Hence, this appeal by the State.