MANJEET SINGH @ SHANTI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has directed the present appeal against his conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.7 -N/7 of 2009, on 29.7.2010 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the offences mentioned hereunder: - Offence underSection Sentence 354 I.P.C. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of ˜5,000/ -.In default to further undergorigorous imprisonment for three months. 366 I.P.C. Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and fine of ˜10,000/ -. In default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 506 I.P.C. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default to further undergorigorous imprisonment for three months. Section 6 of the IndecentRepresentation of Women(Prohibition)Act,1986. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of r2,000/ -. In default to further undergorigorous imprisonment for three months.Section 67Information Act, 2000. of theTechnology Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and fine of r10,000/ -. In default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The facts in brief, giving rise to the present appeal can be stated thus. In the year 2008, PW1 prosecutrix was studying in 7th standard in Government Senior Secondary School, Paonta Sahib. PW2 her friend was her School - mate. They were residing in village Shubhkhera, thus became familiar to each other. They used to go to School together. Their annual examination was scheduled to be held in the month of March, 2008. On Ist March, 2008, PW1 appeared in the paper of Hindi, whereas her friend PW2 had also come to the School to take examination. When their respective papers were over, they came out from the School and noticed a white coloured car bearing registration No.DL -2C -2465 with black mirrors parked outside. (ii) Appellant was on the driving wheel. He asked to drop them at their respective houses. They accepted the offer and boarded the car, but instead of taking them to their residence, he drove it off towards Dehradun side and stopped in front of a hotel and took them to a room. It is alleged that he forcibly removed the clothes of both the prosecutrixes and shot their film on his Mobile Phone. He also tried to sexually exploit PW1, but she raised hue and cry, thus, she was let off but molested her friend PW2. Thereafter the appellant started blackmailing and threatening them to show their film to public. Under these threats, he had been taking the prosecutrixes to different places. (iii) It is alleged that in September, 2008, PW1 -prosecutrix was taken by the appellant to his house situated near Gurudwara building at Bye -pass road Paonta Sahib and threatened her to satisfy his sexual lust, lest he would show her made film to the public. She succumbed to his threats. Thereafter he took her towards Sataun and Shamsherpur, where he again committed sexual intercourse with her. (iv) On 14.11.2008, PW1 came to know that the obscene film shot by the appellant was in the knowledge of the students of her School. PW1 alleged that on the pretext of showing the nude film, the appellant exploited both the prosecutrixes sexually. (v) When there was a rumour about the nude film of the prosecutrixes, the police got a secret information and contacted PW1 -prosecutrix. She got recorded her statement Ext.PW1/A on 18.11.2008 involving the appellant and his co -accused Gurpreet Singh @ Raju and Harjeet Singh @ Raja. This statement was culminated into FIR Ext.PW1 4/A under Section 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code. On the same day, on the request of police, both the prosecutrixes were medically examined by PW18 Dr. Shail Sehgal with the alleged history of sexual assault in the month of September, 2008. On the examination of both the prosecutrixes, the Doctor was of the opinion that there was nothing suggestive of the fact that they had not had sexual intercourse in the past. Medico Legal Certificate of PW1 is Ext.PW18/B and that of PW2 is Ext.PW18/C.(vi) Police arrested the appellant on 18.11.2008 and took into possession his Mobile Phone Ext.P1. The investigation was taken up in his own hand by PW24 Virneder Singh Thakur, Dy.S.P.(vii) On 24.11.2008, one compact disk (CD) was produced by PW4 Akhwinder Singh containing the video clipping. (viii) On 29.11.2008, co -accused Gurpreet Singh was arrested when the prosecutrix also made allegations of rape against him. Harjeet Singh, co - accused was allegedly extending help to them in the commission of the crime, thus he was also arrested. (ix)During investigation, police took into possession birth certificate of PW1, wherein, her date of birth has been shown as 17.5.1992 and that of PW2 another prosecutrix as 28.9.1994. According to the case of the prosecution on the day of alleged incident, both the prosecutrixes were minor.(x) Police took into possession the record of the hotel, wherein the photographs of the prosecutrixes were taken by the appellant. (xi) A Compact Disk (CD) and cassette containing the sample voice of the appellant alongwith his Mobile Phone sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, for its examination and the report Ext. PW24/E confirmed the obscene videography from the Mobile Phone Ext.P1 and the voice contained in the C.D. matched with the voice of the appellant.

(3.) After completing of the investigation of the case, appellant alongwith his co -accused were sent up for trial. They were charge - sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 363, 366, 376 (2) (g) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as well as Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.