PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions trial No. 67 of 2009/26 of 08, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kullu, on 29.09.2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby he has been sentenced as under: Sr.No.Offence under SectionSentence 1. Sec. 376 IPCSimple Imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further under go simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Sec. 342 IPCRigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one months. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Out of fine if realized, an amount of Rs.15,000/ - has been ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. The benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also given.

(2.) THE prosecution story as emerges from the evidence on record can be stated thus. Prosecutrix was married to PW2 Ravi Kumar one year prior to the date of alleged incident and from this wedlock, a female child was born. Appellant herein to be referred as "the accused" was known to the prosecutrix prior to her marriage and he was a regular visitor in the house of his maternal uncle Shri Amar Chand in the village of the prosecutrix where she was married.

(3.) SHRI Dharamvir Sharma, learned Counsel for the accused forcefully argued that there are material contradictions appearing in the statements of the prosecutrix and also the other prosecution witnesses, which renders the testimony of the prosecutrix unworthy of credit. He further ventilated that the medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution coupled with the fact that when the prosecutrix was allegedly dragged, she did not sustain any injury on her person, which falsifies the story as propounded by her. learned Counsel also pointed out that it was a thickly populated village, so on raising hue and cry, surprisingly nobody came forward, which creates a doubt in the prosecution case, is also a matter to be considered.