DEVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment dated 27.3.2003/1.4.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chamba, whereby the appellants (hereafter referred to as the accused persons) have been convicted and sentenced. Therefore, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. Accused Devi Singh has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC, and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of the payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 363 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 366, Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 376, IPC, and accused Puran Chand has been convicted under Section 376, IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

(2.) Case of the prosecution is that accused Devi Singh used to call Sat Pal (PW-13), a resident of Sugyali in Chamba District, as Mamu and used to visit his house off and on. On 14.3.2001 accompanied by his wife Kamla and her father Pritho, he went to the house of PW-13. On that day the prosecutrix then aged 13 years and a student of 4th class and her younger brother Anil Kumar (PW-14) were present in the house and PW-13 was not there. Accused Devi Singh told the prosecutrix that her father had called her to Chamba and she should accompany them to Chamba. The prosecutrix then went to Chamba with accused Devi Singh and his companions. In the evening when PW-13 came to his house he found that the prosecutrix was not present in the house. He was informed by Anil Kumar that she had gone with Devi Singh, Kamla and Pritho. PW-13 started a search for his daughter but in vain. Finally, on 18.3.2001 he reported the matter to the police at Station Sadar, Chamba, where FIR Ext. PB came into being and the investigation followed. On 23.3.2001, information was received at Police Station, Chamba, from Police Post Saluni that the prosecutrix and accused Devi Singh were brought to the Police Post by one Hans Ran and they were detained at the Police Post. On receipt of this information, SI Sukh Dev (PW-17) accompanied by PW-13 went to Saluni. The prosecutrix was then handed over to the care and custody of PW-13 vide Memo. Ext. PO. The prosecutrix was got medically examined and her dental and skeleton age was got ascertained. The MLC in this regard is Ext. PH, the opinion about the dental age of the prosecutrix is Ext. PL and opinion about her skeleton age is Ext. PK. As per the opinion Ext. PL the prosecutrix was about 13 years of age and as per the opinion Ext. PK her skeleton age was between 13 to 15 years. At the time of her medical examination her pubic hair, Vaginal smear and salwar were taken in possession by Dr. Brij Bala Sharma (PW-4), for being sent for chemical analysis. During investigation it was found that the prosecutrix was subjected to rape of different dates at different places by the accused persons. On arrest of the accused they were also got medically examined and as per MLCs Ext. PA and Ext. PB both of them were found sexually potent. At the time of medical examination of accused Devi Singh his smegma, smear, pant and pubic hair were taken in possession and similarly smegma and underwear of accused Puran Chand were taken in possession for chemical analysis. As per the report Ext. PH received from the State Forensic Science Laboratory, blood and human semen were found on the pant of accused Devi Singh, blood was found in pubic hair of the accused persons, human blood and human semen were found on the underwear of accused Puran Chand and human semen was found in vaginal smear and salwar of the prosecutrix. As per the School Leaving Certificate Ext. PC, entries in the admission and withdrawal register of the School Ext. PD, admission form Ext. PN and the certificate Ex. PE issued by the concerned gram panchayat, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 15th of September, 1987. During the investigation the police also found involvement of Pritho, Karmo Ram and Bajro in facilitating the commission of the offences by accused persons and accordingly the concerned SHO submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons and the aforesaid persons. Accused Devi Singh was tried on a charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC, accused Puran Chand was tried on a charge under Section 376, IPC and others, namely, Pritho, Karmo and Bajro were tried on a charge under Section 368, IPC.

(3.) To prove the charges against the accused persons and the other charges persons, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses. Accused were examined under Section 313, Cr PC, wherein they denied the case of the prosecution as a whole. The accused, however, did not lead any defence evidence. On consideration of the evidence on record the trial Court acquitted Pritho, Karmo and Bajro and admittedly their acquittal has become final. However, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced as afore-said. Hence, Criminal Appeal No. 287/ 2003 has been preferred by accused Devi Singh and Criminal Appeal No. 288/2003 has been preferred by accused Puran Chand.