MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Cr. P.C. against the judgment of the court of learned Sessions Judge, Charnba, dated 13.11.2002, vide which the appellant was held guilty under Sections 376, 511 and 342 of the IPC and was sentenced as under:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 27.7.2001, the prosecutrix 'A' (name not mentioned) along with her mother 'D' came to the police station and lodged a report. In the report, she had alleged that she had gone to the house of one Karmo for leaving milk there and at about 9.00 a.m., when she was coming back, she went to the karyana shop of the appellant to purchase a toffee. None was present there. After purchasing the toffee, when she was leaving the shop, the appellant pulled her inside the shop from her arm and gave a threat that in case she raised an alarm, he would kill her. It was alleged that he took her to the inner room, bolted the door and attempted to forcibly open the string of her salwar. She pushed him and took her to the bed and started making indecent assault. She raised an alarm and the appellant stated that he would do the act forcibly. When she raised an alarm, he put his hand on her mouth. He broke the string of her salwar, threw it on the floor and also removed his pants and underwear and forcibly put his penis inside her vagina. He did the act for 10-15 minute. She was crying during this period and he was over her for about two hours and had been pressing the nipples of her breast. On hearing her cries, Simlo and Tripta stopped there, knocked the door and the appellant removed one wooden plank from the floor and threw her in the other room. Thereafter, the room was opened by the appellant and many persons had gathered there and the mother of the prosecutrix and her mother's brother also reached there. On this report, a case was registered and after investigation, the challan was filed before the court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, who framed the charge under Sections 376,342 and 506 of the IPC. The appellant was tried by the learned trial Court leading to his conviction and sentence as detailed above.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the respondent had supported the impugned judgment for the reasons recorded therein.