HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant accused against his conviction under Sections 342, 354, 506, 376 read with Section 511 I.P.C. The sentences imposed under each of the sections are as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_879_TLHPH0_2012_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The prosecution case is that the victim PW2, who was a minor girl (name withheld), was returning home from school on 6th July, 2000 when she met the appellant-accused, who asked her to accompany him to his house to collect newspaper of her brother which had been kept inside the room. When she went inside, the accused bolted the door from inside and took off his trouser and the salwar of the victim. He forced her to lie down on a cot and he also lay on top of her. At this, she raised a hue and cry on which grand mother of the accused rushed to the spot and rescued her from the clutches of the accused. The case is that when the grand mother of the accused knocked the door, accused put on his trouser and fled from the scene. He threatened her that he would kill both of them in case they disclose the occurrence to anyone. It was for this reason that the First Information Report was lodged after seven days of the occurrence. On 14th July, 2000, the prosecutrix along with her paternal uncle Ranjeet Singh (PW4) went to Police Station, Bharari, where F.I.R. Ext.PW2/A was recorded. The prosecutrix was examined by Dr. T.S.Chandel, who issued M.L.C. Ext.PW6/A. The accused after arrest was medically examined and M.L.C. Ext.PW6/B was recorded by PW6 Dr. T.S.Chandel, Medical Officer, C.H.C.Bharari, District Bilaspur. The accused was arraigned for offences under Sections 342, 354, 506 and 376 I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment as noted supra. The learned trial Court, on the entirety of the evidence held the appellant guilty of the offences and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment. The appellant now challenges his conviction.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the judgment cannot be sustained as the evidence on record does not anywhere indicate that the appellant was remotely connected with the offence. He refers to the statement of PW1 Dr.D.S.Gurang, Medical Officer, I.G.M.C., Shimla, H.P. He stated that he was posted as Medical Officer at Community Hospital, Ghumarwin where the prosecutrix remained admitted from 7.7.2000 to 12.7.2000 for treatment of Pyrexia with abdomen pain. He proved on record Ext.PW1/A which is the medical certificate issued by him certifying that the prosecutrix had been admitted in hospital on 7.7.2000 and was discharged on 12.7.2000. He proved from the record that she was admitted in hospital for this period and was assigned indoor bed ticket No.1339/OPD No.26486 on 7.7.2000. She was treated for fever with abdomen pain. In his cross-examination, he states that the prosecutrix was fully conscious and did not display any signs of fear. He attended her for about 6/7 days regularly. She never made any complaint about sexual harassment/assault etc. In these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is the testimony of an independent witness which totally falsifies the narration of facts put forth by the prosecution to establish the offences as charged.