LAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant against his conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 3(I)(XII) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 wherein the accused has been sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. In the event of fine being paid, this amount is to be paid as compensation to the prosecutrix.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix was pursuing Computer Course at Daulatpur Chwok in 2007 -2008. The accused was running a bakery shop and one Anil had introduced the prosecutrix to him. The further case of the prosecution is that both the prosecutrix and the accused became friendly and that during the period from 27.7.2009 to 26.4.2011 they developed physical intimacy. The accused kept on visiting the prosecutrix who was called to the fields near her house which continued till February, 2011. On every occasion they had sexual relations. The accused was threatening her that he would disclose these facts to his friends and also stated that in case she disclosed their relationship to anybody, he would not marry her. He purchased three mobile Sims retaining one with him and other two were handed over to the prosecutrix. In March, 2011, the prosecutrix suspected that she was pregnant because she had missed her regular periods when the accused took her urine sample which purportedly proved positive for pregnancy. The accused had assured her that he would marry her and there was no cause for worry. On 15.4.2011 the accused asked the prosecutrix to take some medicines assuring her that those were for her benefit. On the next day, the prosecutrix informed her Bhabhi about the entire episode, when the accused refused to marry her saying that she do not belong to his caste. On 17.4.2011, she consumed the medicines given to her. She vomited with some blood and fell unconscious. She was taken to hospital at Daulatpur where Dr.Sandeep Narula treated her and obtained gastric lavage fluid which was handed over to the police in a sealed bottle. Thereafter, she was referred to PGI, Chandigarh where her urine sample was found positive for her pregnancy whereupon she disclosed the name of the accused as the person whose fetus she was carrying. Further case of the prosecution is that Sumit, cousin brother of prosecutrix, spoke to the family of the accused for ceremonising the marriage of the prosecutrix with accused, but brother of accused refused and instead offered Rs.two lacs and told him that she could be married with someone else. The prosecution case is that she was diagnosed for cellphos poisoning and MLC was issued accordingly.

(3.) IN all 27 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. On conclusion, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused on the evidence of these witnesses. I am not replicating the evidence as assessed by the learned trial Court but only advert to the crucial evidence on record to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. A number of grounds have been urged by learned counsel for the appellant to urge that the evidence on record does not establish the offence of rape and that there was no false pretence for marriage on which basis the accused was having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.