MANPREET Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has challenged his conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 and 506 Indian Penal Code whereby he was sentenced as follows: Sr. No. Sections Sentence imposed. 1. 363 Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/ -. In default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of six months. 2. Section 366 Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.10000/ - in default of payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. 376 Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ -. In default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 4. Section 506 Indian Penal Code Rigorous imprisonment for a period one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ -. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. Out of the fine if realized, was ordered to be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of detention spent in custody during investigation and trial was ordered to be set -off against the substantive sentence.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in short, can be stated thus. PW5 Shavinder Singh was "A -class" Contractor. He was doing the business of manufacturing electrical wires and also running crane services having approximately 20 employees. He along with his family was residing at Parwanoo. His elder daughter was doing MBA from Newzeland and younger to her is the prosecutrix studying in 10+2 in DAV Senior Secondary School Surajpur District Panchkula and youngest is the son in 10th standard at Mohali.

(3.) SHRI N.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the prosecutrix has been proved to be above the age of discretion. He also referred the evidence of prosecution to show that the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the prosecutrix even as alleged. He further readout the statement of the prosecutrix and ventilated that the version of the prosecution is quite unbelievable and her testimony does not inspire confidence. He also argued that she materially improved her version. The allegations of threats and allurement are absolutely baseless as she stands contradicted with it. Even evidence with respect to her recovery from Dera Beas is also a farce. He further argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence of the prosecution in right manner which caused miscarriage of justice. According to him, the circumstances on record suggest that the prosecutrix was a willing party and in any case, she voluntarily accompanied the accused to various places and there is no evidence of the prosecutrix being forcible taken. It is also pointed out that the prosecutrix also did not raise any hue and cry at any of the places despite having opportunities. Thus, her statement is a gimmic.