STATE OF HP Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 8.6.1999, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 31-S/7 of 1998, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offence, under Sections 342/34, 376(2) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case is that victim/prosecutrix, a major woman, belonging from village Jamo, being deployed as Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? water carrier in Government school, Dargi was commuting daily between her place of residence in village Jamo and the school situated in village Dargi and was keeping her personal belongings at the shop of respondent-accused Hem Singh alias Krishnu in village Dargi and on the way back home was pick up those belongings, however, on 27.10.1997 she kept a plastic bag containing a book and currency notes worth Rs. 300/- at the shop of respondent-accused Krishnu and after the school over she went to the shop about 4.00 P.M. and was told by respondent-accused that her bag was kept in the godown in the lower storey of the building and as soon as she went to collect her bag, respondent-accused Krishunu following her, stealthily pushed her inside the godown and locked the same from outside. Thereafter, respondents-accused Balbir Singh, Mohinder Singh and Joginder Singh, who were hiding in the godown, pounced upon her and kept her in godown upto 11.00 P.M. when respondent-accused Krishnu opened the lock. Thereafter, all four respondents-accused forcibly carried victim/prosecutrix to a nearby Rest House belonging to the forest department and there also she was sexually assaulted. However, she was freed at about 4.00 A.M. with the threat that in case she reported the matter to the police or informed anybody else about the incident, she will face dire consequences. However, victim/prosecutrix went to her house and reached there at 6.00 A.M. and narrated the incident to her co-wife and accordingly, matter was reported on 6.11.1997 by filing FIR No. 185 of 1997. There was a delay of nine days in reporting the matter and in reference to the FIR, investigation was made and all the respondents-accused aforementioned were charged for the aforesaid offences and case was committed to the Sessions Court.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses, out of which testimonies of PW-2 victim/prosecutrix, PW-4 Godawari, the co-wife of the victim/prosecutrix and PW-13 Bhim Singh, Investigating Officer are material, whereas, the respondents-accused through their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case.