STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURENDER KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the judgment dated 12.05.2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2007, titled as State Versus Surender Kumar Sharma, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) It is the case of prosecution that prosecutrix (PW.2) resides with her mother, Usha Devi (DW.1). After the death of her father, her Uncle (taya) (accused) married her mother. The entire family used to reside in the house constructed by the accused. On 23.11.2006, at about 9.00 PM, while prosecutrix was sleeping, accused, under the influence of liquor, entered her room, and after removing his clothes, tried to open the string of her salwar. When she tried to raise alarm accused gagged her mouth and threatened her of dire consequences. She got scared. Thereafter, after opening the string of her salwar, accused sexually ravished her. Thereafter, prosecutrix immediately rushed and disclosed the incident to her sister Hem Lata (PW.6) and her husband Rahul Sharma (PW.7), who also reside in the second floor of the same building. Rahul Sharma reported the matter to the police. Accordingly FIR No.625/06, dated 24.11.2006, (Ex. PW.2/A) was registered against the accused at Police Station, Kullu, under the provisions of Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. On 24.11.2006, prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Namrata Vidyarthi (PW.1), who issued MLC (Ex.PW.1/B). On the allegation that at the time of sexual assault, prosecutrix was menstruating and accused, after removing her sanitary pads, cleaned his private part with a towel and that bed sheet was also stained, police recovered such items. Also clothes of accused and slides for smegma along with other seized articles were seized/recovered and sent for chemical analysis and report (Ex.PA) obtained by the police. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, hence Challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.