LAWS(HPH)-2010-9-269

STATE OF HP Vs. CHATTAR SINGH

Decided On September 27, 2010
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Appellant
V/S
CHATTAR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal has come up for consideration after the leave to appeal has been granted under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in reference to judgment dated 16.2.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla in Session Trial No. 14-S-7 of 1999, thereby acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 (Part-II) of IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 23.7.1998 victim prosecutrix lodged report stating that she had gone to the forest Naldehra in the company of her sister in law (Nanad), namely, Bimla Devi to graze cattle on the previous day, i.e. on 22.7.1998. Whether the reporters of the local papers maybe allowed to see the judgment? Around 2 or 2.30 PM, victim's sister in law went to in a different direction with goats and she kept sitting near the cattle. At 3.30 PM, when she was sitting near the cattle, the accused appeared from behind and overpowered her. He dragged her to a point below a precipice and sexually assaulted her. She cried for help, but nobody came to her rescue. The accused after committing sexual assault, threatened the victim-prosecutrix that in case she complained to anybody about his conduct, she would be done to death. After alleged sexual assault, victim prosecutrix proceeded towards village along with her cattle. On the way, her sister in law, named, Bimla Devi met her and she narrated the incident to her and after some time, lady named Meera also met her and to that lady also, she complained about the sexual assault. Husband of the victim prosecutrix returned home in the evening around 8 or 8.30 PM. Then, victim prosecutrix told him about the incident . Next day, report was lodged and the victim was medically examined. After investigation, accused was charged for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to Session Court.

(3.) In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 8 prosecution witnesses, whereas through his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC accused denied the same.