SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 28.3.2013 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba, District Chamba in Sessions Trial No. 56/12 whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as the "accused" for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/ -. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that prosecutrix used to reside at Dalhousie with her parents. She was studying in Moti Ka Tibba School. Her native place is Aruwan. Her grand -parents had been living in joint family. Three years back, somewhere in the month of December, 2009, during winter vacation, prosecutrix visited the place of her grand -parents. She had been taken there by her mother. While at the place of her grand parents, prosecutrix was playing with her younger brother. Accused called her to the room on the first floor. She responded to the call of the accused. On reaching the room, accused bolted the door from inside and made the prosecutrix lie on the bed. Her mouth was gagged. Accused stripped off salwar of prosecutrix of her one leg. He put off his trousers. Accused laid on prosecutrix and thrust his penis inside her vagina. She fell unconscious. When she regained conscious, prosecutrix found no one in the room. Accused also criminally intimidated prosecutrix not to disclose this act to anyone, otherwise she would be killed. After 10 -15 days again, accused took prosecutrix to the same room and committed sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, prosecutrix returned to Dalhousie. Again after two months, prosecutrix visited her grand -parents on seven days vacation in the school. During this period also, accused took the prosecutrix forcibly to his own room where he had sexual intercourse with her and also criminally intimidated her not to disclose to anyone. After a lapse of 2 -3 months again prosecutrix visited her grandparents and accused called her but she did not respond and slipped away. The prosecutrix started complaining of stomach ache, 2 -3 months prior to September, 2012. She was given medicine by the local doctor. Her mother took her for treatment to Kakira Hospital on 3.9.2012. She was medically checked up by PW -8 Dr. Jasbir Kaur. She told the mother of prosecutrix that her daughter might have been sexually assaulted 2 -3 years back. The mother inquired from the prosecutrix as to what happened with her 2 -3 years back when she was at the place of her grand -parents at village Aruwan. Prosecutrix told her mother that accused committed sexual intercourse with her three times. Mother shared this incident with her husband. They went to the Police Station to lodge complaint. They filed complaint Ex. PW -1/A before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dalhousie, who forwarded the same to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Kihar with endorsement Ex. PW -12/A alongwith OPD slip Ex. PW -8/A. The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination to Regional Hospital, Chamba. PW -9 Dr. Arti Sharma and Dr. Richa Gupta medically examined the prosecutrix. No injury marks were found. In the opinion of PW -9 Dr. Arti Sharma, prosecutrix had been subjected to sexual intercourse, but it was not possible to say when this act was committed. She issued MLC Ex. PW -9/B. Accused was arrested. Date of birth of the prosecutrix was obtained. Date of birth of prosecutrix was found to be 21.4.2000. Accused was also medically examined. Investigation was completed and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) MR . Chandranarayan Singh has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused.