SHOBHA RAM Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-3-2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur whereby the accused/appellants (hereafter referred to as the accused persons) have been convicted under Sections 452/34, 511/376/34 and 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced as follows :- Sr. No. Offence Sentence imposed. 1. Section 511 read with Simple imprisonment for seven years each and Sections 376 & 34 IPC. fine of Rs. 15,000.00 each and in default of payment of fine each accused to undergo further 5.1. for one year.

(2.) Section 452 read with Simple imprisonment for five years each and Section 34 IPC fine of Rs. 5000.00 each and in default of payment of fine each accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

(3.) Section 342 IPC read with Simple imprisonment of one year each. Section 34 IPC 2. The case of the prosecution against the accused persons in brief is that at about 1 a.m. on 29th September, 2001 in furtherance of their common intention of committing rape on the prosecutrix (PW-1) they trespassed into the house of Shukru Ram (PW-3) at Village Chhatridhar. After forcing their entry into the house accused Shobha Ram caught hold of husband of the prosecutrix (PW-3) and accused Roshan Lal committed rape on the prosecutrix, who is blind. When PW-3 started crying accused Shobha Ram gagged his mouth. Thereafter accused Roshan Lal caught hold of PW-3 and accused Shobha Ram committed rape on the prosecutrix. The accused threatened the prosecutrix and her husband to be done away with in case they divulged the occurrence to anyone. On 1-10-2001 one Kumat Ram went to the house of PW-3 who narrated the occurrence to him. Said Kumat Ram took PW-1 and PW-3 to Kanwar Singh (PW-2) Up-Pradhan of the Panchayat and the occurrence was narrated to him. PW-2 gave a telephonic information to Police Station, Nirmand vide Daily Diary Report Ext. PW-5/A. Thereafter a police party headed by S.I. Parkash Chand (PW-11) proceeded to the house of PW-2 where statement of PW-3 Ext. PW3/A was recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. and on its basis F.I.R. Ext. PW-6/A was registered at Police Station, Nirmand and the investigation followed. The prosecu-trix was got medically examined and on such examination Dr. R.D. Goel (PW-9) issued M.L.C. Ext. PW-9/A. At the time of examination of the prosecutrix her wea-ring apparels i.e. Salwaar, Kameez and vaginal swab matter were taken in posse-ssion for chemical analysis. After arrest of the accused persons they were also got medically examined and on such examination Dr. Rakesh Gupta (PW-10) found both the accused persons sexually potent and accordingly issued MLCs Ext. PW-10/A and Ext. PW-10/B respectively. During the course of investigation on production by accused Roshan Lal his pant was taken in possession vide Memo Ext. PW-5/B and one pant of accused Shobha Ram on production of by his wife Indra Devi was taken in possession vide Memo PW-8/A. The wearing apparels of the prosecutrix and the accused persons and vaginal swab taken in possession, as aforesaid, were sent for chemical analysis and vide report Ext. PW-11/D some blood traces were noticed on the Salwar of the prosecutrix but no blood or semen was found on her shirt. Some traces of blood and human semen was found in the vaginal swab. Human semen was found on the pants of the accused persons. on being satisfied of the commission of the offences by the accused persons the concerned S.H.O. submitted a charge-sheet against the accused persons who were tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur on a charge under Sections 452/34, 376/34, 506/34 and 342/34 IPC. To prove the charge against the accused persons, prosecutrix examined 11 witnesses. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in defence. On consideration of the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal by the aggrieved accused persons. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records.