SURJEET SINGH SON OF SHRI KEHAR SINGH, RAVI KUMAR SON OF SHRI KISHAN CHAND AND MOHAN LALA @ MOHNU SON OF SHRI HARNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the convict/appellants against the judgment dated 15.5.2007, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -II, Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Case No. 7 -E/VII/2004, convicting the accused/respondents for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code in reference to FIR No. 64/2003 dated 6.6.2003, of Police Station, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. By the impugned judgment appealed against, learned Additional Sessions Judge, while holding the appellants Mohan Lal @ Mohnu and Ravi Kumar guilty for the aforesaid offences has convicted and sentenced them to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/ - each for commission of offence under Section 363 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/ - each for commission of offence under Section 366 and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. For commission of offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, the appellants were also convicted and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellant Pappu @ Surjit Singh was convicted and sentence for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to fine of Rs.25,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for commission of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was further directed in the judgment that the fine, if realized, be awarded as compensation to the victim under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 11 prosecution witnesses, whereas the convict/appellants, through their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution case and adduced only one defence witness DW -1 Sh. Sita Ram.