SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, dated 30.8.2010/31. 8.2010, vide which the appellant was held guilty under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 19.6.2009, at 2.50 a.m., a statement was made by PW -14 Jogi Ram, a Home Guard official, to a Police Officer under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant alleged that he is working in Home Guard and was on duty attached with Police Station, Paonta Sahib. On 18.6.2009, he alongwith another Home Guard official Joginder Singh, PW -1, was on patrolling duty near Bangran Bye Pass. He further alleged that when they were crossing the Bagran Chowk, they heard cries of a woman at about 11.30 p.m. They started looking to the place from where the said cries were coming and meanwhile they were joined by one Sandeep Batra, who was having his house nearby and had come out of his house alongwith a torch. All the three proceeded to the spot and saw one person in a half naked position and one woman in a naked position and the woman was screaming that rape was being committed. On seeing them, the said person ran away from the spot and was followed by the complainant and other person. The said person gave his name as Suresh Kumar, appellant. The said woman appeared to be mentally retarded. Suresh Kumar, appellant, was handed over to the police and the statement was made to the Police Officer, who had come to the spot on receipt of a telephonic message. The Police Station was at a distance of 1 km from the said place.

(3.) I have heard Mr.Karan Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent and have gone through the record of the case.