AMEER CHAND Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant after was found guilty of having committed offence under Section 376 I.P.C., has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ -. In the event of failure of deposit of fine, he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of one year. Period when he was in custody during investigation and trial was to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Appellant makes grievance against this judgment passed be the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmour District, at Nahan in Sessions Trial No.34 -ST/7 of 1999, dated 29.5.2000.

(2.) Mr. Chandel learned counsel for the appellant while questioning the legality and correctness of the judgment impugned, urged that there is delay in lodging the FIR. Alleged incident is of 8th August 1999, whereas FIR was lodged on 11th August, 1999 when the Police Station was at a stones throw from the residence of the complainant. There being no satisfactory explanation for this delay the element of concoction, fabrication and deliberations before lodging the FIR cannot be ruled out. This has caused material prejudice to the appellant. He further pointed out that the statement of prosecution witnesses, particularly the mother of the prosecutrix (PW -3) and prosecutrix herself (PW -4) cannot be accepted to maintain and uphold the conviction. Once, these statements are excluded there is no legal evidence so as to hold the appellant guilty of any offence, muchless under Section 376 I.P.C. By referring to the statement of PW -1 Dr. Mrs. Anjana Oberoi (who examined the prosecutrix being habitual to sexual intercourse and the manner in which she had projected her grievance to the effect that she was being ravished by the appellant for the last three months is pure and simple result of concoction and deliberations aimed at falsely implicating his client.

(3.) Another ground pressed by Mr. Chandel was that the mother of the prosecutrix (PW -3) Geeta Devi has a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. As according to him, this witness has admitted that she had a quarrel with the appellant and was demanding money, failing which had threatened to falsely implicate him (the appellant). Thus this case is nothing but a cooked up affair, therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed.