DALIP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 1st May, 2009, in Sessions Trial No. 67/09 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, whereby the appellant, one of the accused, has been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, preferred the present appeal for setting aside the same.

(2.) The challenge to the impugned judgment is on the grounds inter-alia that Court below has not appreciated the evidence on record in its right perspective and that the testimony of prosecutrix which does not inspire any confidence has been erroneously relied upon. Cogent and reliable link evidence connecting the accused with the commission of the offence is also not on record as against pink coloured salwar, yellow coloured kamij and green coloured panty preserved by Dr. PW-6 Dr. Geeta.K.Lal, the parcels when opened were found having contained one red, yellow, blue, violet, green and black coloured salwar and green and blue coloured underwear. It is, therefore, contended that possibility of the case property having been tampered with, cannot be ruled-out, which aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. While referring to the statement of the prosecutrix, it has been submitted that same is full of contradictions qua material aspects. The delay in registration of the FIR has also been highlighted. It has been submitted that the prosecutrix had voluntarily accompanied the accused and had been residing in his house in the capacity of his wife. The statement of DW-1 Secretary-cum-salesman, Gram Panchayat, Sehkari Smeeti, Urla Tehsil Padhar, Distt. Mandi and the entry at Serial No. 159 which pertains to ration card No. 196 issued in the name of the father of the accused have also been pressed in service, as it is the prosecutrix who had collected the ration from the above Sehkari Smeeti under her signature. The medical evidence is also stated to be not appreciated in its right perspective.

(3.) If coming to the factual matrix, the allegations against the appellant-accused and his coaccused Smt. Reena W/o Sh. Bhawani Singh, his sister and Smt. Reena w/o Sh. Kuldeep, his sister-in-law (Bhabi) are that on 19.10.2008 when the prosecutrix was in the market at Kullu, deputed there by her father to purchase certain articles, called over her cellphone by Smt. Reena and she was asked to come to Kullu where she was waiting for her along with another Reena, her sister-inlaw. The prosecutrix came to meet them at Kullu bus stand. Thereafter, she came to Bhuntar with both the ladies accused. They reached at 1.30 p.m at Bhuntar. The ladies accused introduced the prosecturix to accused appellant Dalip alias Rajesh who was sitting inside the vehicle. It was disclosed to her that accused wanted to marry her. She was directed to sit in the vehicle. She tried to raise alarm, however, accused made her to sit in the vehicle forcibly. Then she was taken to village Masawan in District Mandi. There she was locked inside the room with appellant-accused who subjected her to sexual intercourse forcibly. It is on 22nd October, 2008 around 5.30 a.m she informed her parents who came to village Mashwahan along with her maternal uncle and rescued her form the custody of the accused. It is with such allegations, FIR Ext. PW8/A was registered at her instance.