STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SUNIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE has appealed against the judgment dated 25.11.2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, passed in Sessions Case No. 17 -B/2011, titled as State v. Sunil Kumar & another, challenging the acquittal of respondents Sunil Kumar and Babu Ram (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stand charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 376 IPC and 376/109 IPC, respectively.

(2.) IT is the case of prosecution that on 11.3.2011, prosecutrix alongwith her grandson had gone to the house of in -laws of her daughter Sapna Devi at Gallu. On her way back, on 14.3.2011 at about 3 p.m., accused made her sit in a vehicle. After some time, prosecutrix, under threat, was forced to consume liquor. Midway at Chogan Colony, she was subjected to sexual intercourse, without her consent, by accused Sunil, who was helped by co -accused Babu Ram. Somehow, prosecutrix was able to save herself and report the matter to Smt. Sheela Devi (PW -4), Pradhan of the Panchayat, who in turn informed the police. Statement (Ex. PW -1/A) of the prosecutrix, under the provisions of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded, on the basis of which FIR No. 31 dated 18.3.2011 (Ex. PW -9/B), under the provisions of Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Tenzin Dechen and MLC (Ex. PW -11/A) and final report (Ex. PW -11/B) taken on record by the police. With the completion of investigation, which revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and statements of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, in which they took plea of false implication.