GANESH SINGH @ BABA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 27.2.2013 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., in Sessions Case No. 3- N/VII/12, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376/511, 307, 394, 454 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. All the aforesaid sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and the period of detention undergone by the appellant during investigation and trial has been ordered to be set off.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 7.9.2011, the prosecutrix (PW3) was in her house at village Kuttan, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra (HP). Her children had gone to school and her father-in-law and mother-in-law had gone to Chakki Kandwal for shopping. At about 1.30 P.M. when the prosecutrix went inside the bathroom to take bath after washing clothes, the appellant came inside the bathroom of the prosecutrix and attempted to rape on her. The prosecutrix cried at the spot, however, due to heavy rain and place being isolated, nobody could hear the noise of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix resisted the act of the appellant. When the appellant failed to fulfill his aim of committing rape on the prosecutrix, he tried to strangulate the prosecutrix and he hit the head of the prosecutrix on the wall. He also gave a blow of knife on the throat of the prosecutrix, due to which she could not speak. The appellant had also taken away the ornaments of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix managed to come to the verandah of her house by crawling and she wrapped her body with the bed sheet. In the meanwhile, the children of the prosecutrix came there and by gestures, she asked them to provide her copy and pencil. She wrote on the paper "TAU KO PHONE KARO". The children did not know number of their uncle (Tau). The prosecutrix asked her children to call Kallu from her neighbourhood. The son of the prosecutrix went to the house of Kallu and Smt. Nirmal Devi, mother of Kallu, came at the spot after some time. The villagers had also come on the spot. In the meantime, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the prosecutrix had also come on the spot.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses. The appellant also examined two witnesses in his defence. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove, on 27.2.2013. Hence, this appeal. .