STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. NATHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 3.3.4004 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan, whereby he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused) and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. II, Paonta Sahib, whereby he convicted the accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 377 IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the victim (name withheld) was sodomised by the accused. THE accused runs a hotel (dabha) wherein the victim was employed. On the night intervening 6th/7th August, 2000 the victim went to sleep inside the hotel. He was sleeping on a mat on the floor. THE other servants were sleeping outside in the open. THE door of the hotel was open. According to the victim, the accused, who was running the hotel came inside, removed the pants and underwear of the victim and then forcibly subjected him to carnal intercourse. THE version of the victim is that he could not raise an alarm since his mouth was gagged by the accused. After the occurrence he informed the other servants about the incident who in turn informed some other persons and these persons took him on a scooter to the police station. THEreafter these persons dropped the victim outside the police station and they themselves did not come inside the police station. THE victim went inside the police station and reported the matter. On the basis of his statement, FIR was lodged. THE victim was got medically examined from PW-3 Dr. S.N. Sachan and other formalities were completed. THEreafter the accused was charged with having committed the offence aforesaid. After trial, the accused was convicted by the learned trial Court as detailed hereinabove. THE accused filed an appeal and this appeal was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, this appeal by the State.

(3.) COMING to the medical evidence, we find that though the doctor has found laceration on the anal region but he found no other injury or scratch marks etc. on any portion of the body of the victim. In cross-examination the doctors admitted that the laceration in the anal region could be self-inflicted. The victim is a young boy. He could have resisted and raised an alarm. Admittedly, there were other servants sleeping just outside the hotel room. The explanation given by the victim is that he could not raise an alarm since the accused had gagged his mouth. However, when asked to clarify in cross examination as to why he did not resist and raise an alarm when the accused was taking off the pants and underwear of the victim, he came out with a different version. According to the victim at that time he was half asleep and did not realize when his pants and underwear were opened. This version is not believable.