GULSHAN KUMAR RANA Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment, rendered on 30.09.2008, by the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.27 of 2007, whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, to, suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to a pay fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment, for, a period of three months, for the commission of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

(2.) THE brief facts, of the case, are that the prosecutrix, PW -3 was aged about 17 years. She was studying in Government Senior Secondary School, Kunsal, located at a distance of 7 -9 kilometers from her house. On 1.6.2007, after the school hours, she was proceeding home from school. The prosecutrix commuted the distance, from Kunsal to Maha -Kaal on foot. She boarded a private bus, at, Maha -Kaal, for Mudh. The accused also boarded the bus at Maha -Kaal. PW -3, the prosecutrix alighted the bus at Mudh. She had to cover the distance from Mudh to her home on foot. The accused, too, alighted at Mudh. The accused asked PW -3, the prosecutrix, if she was proceeding to her house. The prosecutrix on sensing that the accused did not have good intention, informed him, that, she was going to the house of the sister of her mother, in, a different village. The accused left on foot towards village Gawal, though, the accused had been putting up in village Dadeen, which village, is, close to village Gawal. On departure of the accused to village Gawal, the prosecutrix left for her house through a different path passing, through, the forest. The accused was keeping a watch over the movement of PW -3. The accused reached the area of Thathru forest, ahead of PW -3. However, when the prosecutrix reached the Thathru forest area at about 2.45 p.m., the accused intercepted her. The prosecutrix was forcibly taken behind the bushes in the forest. PW -3, the prosecutrix, cried for help. However, none responded to the cries of PW -3, as, the area was thick forest. PW -3 resisted the advances of the accused. The accused is alleged to have committed forcible sexual intercourse twice with the prosecutrix, PW -3, without her consent and will. After committing the crime, the accused left for his destination. PW -3, had reached her house at 5.00 P.M. She had narrated the occurrence to PW -5, her mother and PW -5, then, informed her husband about the rape of her daughter, by the accused. The police was telephonically informed by the father of the prosecutrix. PW -15, Smt. Sureshtha Thakur, Sub Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Baijnath, had recorded rapat No.17, in the daily diary in the Police Station. Copy whereof is Ex.PW14/B. She along with other police personnel rushed to village Gawal.

(3.) THE accused was charged for his having committed an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC by the learned trial Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined many witnesses. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication.