TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 30.3.2010 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 7-N/7 of 2008 whereby the appellants-accused (hereinafter referred to as the "accused" for brevity sake), who were charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 452, 342, 376 (2) (g) and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they were ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under section 376 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. Accused were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-each and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months under section 452 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period of one month, under section 342 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months under section 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 29.2.2008, at about 10.30 P.M, accused came on the front door of the room of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix asked them as to why they were standing there. Accused told her that they wanted to have sex with her. Accused entered the room and when the prosecutrix threatened to raise alarm, one of the accused gagged her mouth and the other pressed her throat. Accused bolted the door from inside and threatened the prosecutrix that in case she raised alarm, she would be killed. One of the accused committed rape upon the prosecutrix on the carpet and the other accused took the prosecutrix to her bedroom and committed rape upon her forcibly. In an attempt to save herself, prosecutrix sustained bruise on her cheek. She came out and raised alarm. Accused fled away from the spot. She went to the house of her landlord PW-1 Ved Parkash. He came with her at the place of occurrence. PW- 2 Rajender Kumar disclosed the names of the accused as Tilak Raj and Ram Singh. The prosecutrix stayed in the house of PW-1 Ved Parkash. Next morning, she reported the matter to the police vide complaint Ex. PW-3/A. On the basis of which formal FIR Ex. PW-13/A was registered at Police Station, Nahan. Accused were identified. The matter was investigated by PW-16 Inspector Vijay Sharma. During investigation, he prepared spot map and took into possession bed sheet Ex. P-1 and carpet Ex. P-2 alongwith clothes of prosecutrix i.e. Salwar, Ex. P-3, Underwear Ex. P-4 and Shirt Ex. P-5 vide memos Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B. Prosecutrix was medically examined at R.H. Nahan. Accused were also medically examined. PW-5 Dr. Shail Sehgal opined that the prosecutrix had sexual intercourse in the past and injury sustained by her on her cheek was possible in sexual assault. She issued MLC Ex. PW-5/B. The report of Scientific Officer Ex. PW-6/A was received. Thereafter, after completion of codal formalities, challan was put up in the Court.

(3.) Prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statements of accused, under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, were also recorded. They have denied the case of the prosecution and stated that they have been falsely implicated. The accused were convicted and sentenced, as noticed herein above.