STATE OF HP Vs. SHASHAN PAL ALIAS KALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 24.2.2004 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Sessions trial No. 9 of 2003 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 376 and 511 IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the prosecutrix was aged about 14 years at the relevant time. She was On 25th studying in Class 9 in Indira Colony School. July, 2000 she had taken her goats for grazing to Rang near Baba Bhool. At about 6.00 p.m while she was grazing her cattle, accused Shashan Pal came to her and asked her whether she had seen his bullocks. She replied that she had not seen his bullocks and in the meantime the accused caught hold of her from her arm. THE prosecutrix protested and told him not to catch hold of her otherwise she would report this fact to her mother. THE accused, however, did not stop. He again pulled her arm and the prosecutrix fell down on the ground. THE accused forcibly broke the nara of her salwar and started having sexual intercourse with her against her wishes. When she tried to resist he covered her mouth with his hands. In the meantime, the mother of the prosecutrix arrived at the spot and on seeing the mother the accused ran away from the spot. THEreafter report was lodged with the police. THE prosecutrix and the accused were both got medically examined and after completion of the investigation the accused was charged with having committed the offences aforesaid.

(3.) NOW, if the version of the prosecutrix is analyzed it is apparent that according to her, her mouth was gagged, she never raised an alarm and her mother suddenly appeared on the spot. The version of the mother, who appeared as PW-6, is entirely different. According to her when she was going towards Rang side at about 5.45 p.m to answer the call of nature she heard some noise and heard the prosecutrix weeping. When she went towards the prosecutrix she saw the accused running away and he was buttoning his pants. There is an inherent contradiction between the statements of the prosecutrix and her mother. According to the prosecutrix no alarm was raised whereas according to the mother she only came to know about the incident when she heard some noise and heard her daughter crying.