DHARAM SAIN Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 23.12.2010, rendered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 25 -AP/7 of 2008/2010, whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) who was charged with and tried for offences under Sections 376 & 506 of the IPC, was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 376 IPC. He was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months under Section 506 IPC. The amount realized from the accused was ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 4.4.2007, complainant Sohan Lal visited Police Station Nirmand alongwith the prosecutrix, his daughter aged 11 years. He lodged the report. He had been living in a rented house at Village Thachwa alongwith his family for the last two years. On 3.4.2007, when he came back to his quarter at 7/8 PM after doing labour work at Jagatkhana, his wife Kamla Devi told him that the prosecutrix had told her during day time that she was feeling pain in her private part and on inquiry she told her that on 31.3.2007, during day time, when no family member was present in the quarter, the accused person came there and committed rape on her and threatened to do away with her life in case she disclosed this incident to any other person. The complainant also made inquiry from the prosecutrix, who narrated him the same story. Thereafter, he alongwith the prosecutrix visited Police Station Nirmand and reported the matter to the police, on the basis of which, FIR No. 35 of 2007 under Sections 376 and 506 IPC was registered. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. The case property was sent to FSL, Junga. The investigation was completed and challan was put up against the accused after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) MR . Satyen Vaidya, Advocate, appearing for the accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General, has supported the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, H.P. dated 23.12.2010.