DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are being taken up together for disposal and are being disposed by a single judgment, as they have arisen out of the same judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division, Rampur. By means of impugned judgment in Sessions Trial No. 10 -R/1995, dated 20.2.1997, all the appellants after having found guilty of having committed offences under Sections 457, 376, 380/34 IPC have been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment under Section 457 and pay fine of rupees one thousand each, in default of payment whereof they have been directed to undergo six months simple imprisonment; under Section 376, seven years rigorous imprisonment has been imposed upon each one of them and they have also been directed to pay fine of rupees two thousand each, in default of payment whereof, they are required to undergo simple imprisonment for one year; under Section 380 they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of rupees one thousand each and in default of payment whereof, they are required to undergo six months simple imprisonment. All these sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Following the decision of Supreme Court in Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakrahorty, AIR 1996 SC 922, it has been directed that in the event of recovery of fine, a sum of rupees ten thousand will be paid as a compensation to the victim, Smt. Sanam Devi (PW -1), (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) and balance to be deposited towards the fine.

(2.) With a view to properly appreciate and understand the respective contentions urged on behalf of the parties at the time of hearing of this appeal, brief facts giving rise to it need to be noted.

(3.) As per prosecution case, prosecutrix was staying in the house of Dharam Singh at village Akpa. She was employed in DGBR. She is living all by herself in the aforesaid rented house. According to her, on the fateful night, i.e. 20.2.1994, she heard noise outside her house and enquired as to who was there and why they were knocking her door. However, she did not open the door. She heard the persons standing outside were saying that window pane be broken and then after opening the window, they should get into the room. This is how all of them entered inside the room where the prosecutrix was standing against the door to see that it is not opened.