JEET RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement dated 28.11.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi whereby the appellant/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) has been convicted under Sections 376 and of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 23.4.1997 the prosecutrix (PW-3) had gone to Chalhan jungle to graze her cattle. The accused, one Banti and Lila Devi (PW-6) also came there. They kept sitting together for sometime. Thereafter PW-6 and Banti left the place and the accused proceeded towards the prosecutrix. While on the way towards the prosecutrix, he stood and called the prosecutrix saying that he had some work with the prosecutrix as he had to give a message to her sister-in-law. The prosecutrix went to the accused and enquired as to what work he had with her. The accused told that he had no work with her, When the prosecutrix started going back, he caught hold of her leg and threw her on the ground, broke the string of her Salwar and committed rape on her. When the prosecutrix started crying, the accused gagged her mouth with his hand. After the rape, the accused left the place saying that in case the prosecutrix divulged occurrence, he would kill her. The occurrence was seen by PW-6 and said Banti. Because of fear, the prosecutrix did not disclose the occurrence to anyone and even washed the clothes she was wearing at the time of the occurrence. After three or four days of the occurrence, Therefore, the prosecutrix disclosed the occurrence to her sister-in-law Belawati. Thereafter, the prosecutrix accompanied by her brother Ghanshyam (PW-4), went to the Police Station and lodged the FIR Ext. PW-3/A. The prosecutrix was got medically examined and the MLC regarding such examination issued by Dr. Rafia Ranu (PW-1) is Ext. PW-1/B. As per the opinion given by PW-1, the prosecutrix was exposed to coitus more than seven days before her medical examination and an injury found on her person was also of the same duration. The opinion about the skeleton age of the prosecutrix ext. PA was given by Dr. S.K Malhotra (PW-12) according to which the skeleton age of the prosecutrix was opined to be in between thirteen and fifteen and a half years. The salwar Ext P - 2 and shirt Ext. P-3 which the prosecutrix was wearing at the time of the rape and contained blood and semen stains, were taken in possession by the investigating officer vide memo. Ext. PW-8/A. During the investigation officer also took in possession birth certificate Ext. PB of the prosecutrix prepared and issued by PW-13 according to which the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 7.2.1982. A similar certificate mark 'X' issued by Sita Ram (PW-7), President of the concerned Gram Panchayat, was also obtained. On arrest of the accused, he was also got medically examined from Dr. J.C. Sharma (PW-2) who issued MLC Ext. PW-2/B opining that the accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse. Pyzama Ext. P-1 of the accused was also taken in procession for the purpose of chemical analysis. It appears that certain wearing apparels belonging to the prosecutrix, including those taken in possession vide memo. Ext. PW-8/A and those of the accused and some slides and hairs were sent by the Investigating Officer to the State Forensic Science Laboratory and as per the report Ext. PW-11/C received from the said. Laboratory, blood stains were found on the Salwar which were insufficient for further analysis and human semen was also found thereon. In the Pyzama of the accused human semen was detected. In another Salwar human blood was found but there was no semen. Noting incriminating was found on other articles, i.e slides, shirt and hairs.

(3.) On completion of the investigation, the officer incharge of the concerned Police Station submitted a charge-sheet and a charge under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.