SUNIL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.3.2006 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solan in Sessions Trial No. 27 NL/7 of 2005 whereby appellant, who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for an offence under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine in both the cases, he was further ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for each default. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that complainant PW-1 Raju, being mason, was residing at Kishanpura Baddi alongwith his family in a hut. He was working as mason with private contractor Kulwant Singh in Health Care Factory at Kishanpura. PW-2 Ram Kali, mother of the prosecutrix was also working in the factory as labourer. PW-1 Raju and PW-2 Ram Kali on 6.3.2005 had gone to their work place leaving their children in the hut, including prosecutrix aged six years. They came back at 8.00 P.M. They found their daughter missing. PW-1 Raju searched for his missing daughter. In the meantime, he saw accused coming towards his hut from nearby Nallah carrying the prosecutrix in his arms. Accused saw the complainant and fled away from the spot. Complainant and his wife saw that prosecutrix was bleeding from her private part. She was unconscious. Accused was over powered. His vest and underwear were found blood stained. He was taken to Police Post, Baddi. Thereafter, report Ex.PW-6/A was lodged on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW-8/A was registered at Police Station, Barotiwala. The prosecutrix was taken to Civil Hospital, Nallagarh for medical examination. PW-10 Dr. Sunita Sood issued MLC Ex.PW-10/B. Accused was also examined medically after his arrest. His MLC Ex. PX was obtained. Doctor opined that the accused was capable to perform sexual intercourse. During investigation accused made disclosure statement Ex.PW-5/A to the police in presence of Mool Chand and Makhan Singh. He also got recovered panty Ex.P-1, which was worn by the prosecutrix at the time of incident. It was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PA. The Investigating Officer also lifted the blood stained soil and leaves from the spot of occurrence. He took photographs of the spot. The sealed parcels containing panty of prosecutrix Ex. PA, blood stained soil and leaves Ex.P-2 and P-3, frock Ex.P-5 of prosecutrix alongwith her vaginal swab and smear, underwear and 'T' shirt of the accused were later on sent to F.S.L. Junga for chemical test and reports of the Chemical Examiner are Ex.PY and Ex.PZ. Investigation was completed and challan was put up in the court.

(3.) Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses in all to prove its case against the accused. Accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the charges. He did not lead his evidence. Additional Sessions Judge, Solan convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed above.