DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE convict has assailed the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.12.2009 passed by learned Sessions Judge (Special Judge) Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2005 convicting the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC and Section 3 (i) (xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short Atrocities Act) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 376 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 3 (i) (xii) of the Atrocities Act. No separate sentence has been imposed under Sections 363, 366 and 506 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 17.9.2004 PW-4 prosecutrix accompanied by her father PW-5 Lolak Ram reported the matter at Police Station, Rampur that for the last about one month, Dinesh Sharma had been meeting her on her way to school and used to ask her to marry him. On 13.9.2004 at about 2.00 a.m. when the prosecutrix was sleeping with her mother PW-6 Heera Devi in the house, door was knocked, on opening the door, Dinesh Sharma was found standing outside and he came inside the house. He threatened the prosecutrix and her mother. He told her mother that he wanted to marry the prosecutrix, the mother of the prosecutrix had shown her inability to marry the prosecutrix belonging to Scheduled Caste to Dinesh Sharma, who claimed to be a 'Pandit'. THE father of the prosecutrix on that date was not in the house. Dinesh Sharma remained in the room and kept on talking.

(3.) THE charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC and Section 3 (i) (xii) of the Atrocities Act. THE prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and produced some documents. THE statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, he denied the prosecution case. He led no evidence in defence. On conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as noticed above, hence appeal.