SHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal the accused have challenged the decision of Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Sessions trial No. 40 of 1987 decided on 23 -5 -1988 by which the accused have been convicted under Section 376 Indian Penal Code and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts are that accused Sher Singh and Chet Ram raped minor girls Nathi and Shanti who belonged to the village of the accused. The offence was committed in May, 1986 when both the girls were playing in the compound of Brikam Chand father of Shanti. The accused came there and took away these girls to nearby grass -sheds and raped them. According to the prosecution case, the accused had put 'Dupatta' in the mouth of these girls in order to prevent them from raising any hue and cry. After committing the crime, these accused also threatened them that they (the girls) should not tell about this fact to their parents otherwise they would be killed. These girls complained of pain in their private parts to their mothers who applied medicines on the affected parts. Mothers found blood on the private parts and clothes of these girls and on inquiry, these girls told them that they had sustained these injuries while playing.

(3.) THE actual incident came to light when the mothers of these girls asked them again, since certain village children were teasing these girls for the sexual act. Brikam Chand, father of Shanti being away in the jungle, the matter was brought to the notice of local Panchayat by the mothers of these girls and Shri Puran Chand of Nathi. Panchayat had effected a compromise between the parties and had ordered the father of Sher Singh to pay Rs. 1,000/ - to the father of Nathi while the father of Chet Ram was ordered to pay Rs. 700/ - to the mother of Shanti. Smt. Kali Devi, mother of Shanti brought this matter to the notice of her brother Tek Chand who advised her not to accept the compromise and the payment. She was advised to report the matter to the police. However, the police declined to register a case by saying that the matter was too much delayed.