KAMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Kamal Singh, aged 26, was tried for the offence under Section 366 and 376 I.P.C. in the court of the AddI. Sessions Judge, Kangra Sessions Division, ,at Dharamsala. Along with him were tried Sarvshri Fauja Singh and Bhajan Singh for the same offences. Another person Tara Chand was also tried in the same trial for the offence punishable under section 368 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the co-accused of the appellant of the charges framed against them. As regards the appellant the learned Judge found him guilty of the offence punishable under section 366 I.P.C. though the charge under the other section i.e. 376 I.P.C. was held not proved. The appellant was accordingly convicted under section 366 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further R.I. for six months.

(2.) The prosecution story which led to the trial of the appellant and his co-accused may be briefly stated thus. Sh. Dalip Singh, father of the appellant, and Sh. Babu Ram are real brothers and residing at village Sahel, Mauza Fatehpur. Babu Ram married Smt. Satya Devi (PW.4) a few years before the occurrence which is alleged to have taken place in October 1973. Smt. Satya Devi was previously married to one Kesar Singh from whose loins she had a daughter Raksha Devi, the prosecutrix in this case. At the time of her marriage with Babu Ram, PW Satya Devi brought her daughter Rakhsha Devi with her and thus both Satya Devi and Rakhsha Devi started living in the house of Babu Ram (PW.5). The house of Kamal Singh was in the vicinity of the house of Babu Ram. The lands of Babu Ram and Kamal Singh appellant were also adjacent. Both Kamal Singh and Rakhsha Devi prosecutrix used to work on such lands. In this manner some intimacy developed between the prosecutrix and the appellant.

(3.) The further case of the prosecution is that on the night of 8-10-1973 at about 10 or 11 P.M. when the prosecutirx was asleep in her house by the side of her mother Smt. Satya Devi and her husband Sh. Babu Ram, Kamal Singh appellant came there. It may be observed that as per allegations of the prosecution the distance between the cots of the prosecutrix and of her mother was only 5 or 6 feet. At the time of the visit of the appellant, the prosecutrix was asleep but her mother Smt. Satya Devi woke up on hearing the foot steps. On her enquiry the appellant owned that be was Kamal Singh and then returned. After sometime the appellant again visited the house of the prosecutrix and woke her up by giving her a jolt. The appellant then under threat took away the prosecutrix from her house to the main road which was about one mile away. A taxi bearing registration No. HPK 503 was already waiting on the main road with Sarvshri Fauja Singh and Bhajan Singh co-accused of the appellant standing outside. The driver of the taxi was also present inside the taxi. In spite of the protests and hue and cries raised by Rakhsha Devi she was forcibly carried in that taxi. On the next morning she reached Dharamsala where a document was prepared and attested before a Magistrate. At the time of attestation of that document the prosecutrix stated before the Magistrate that her age was 20 years. This document which is alleged to have been executed on 9-10-1973, however, has not seen the light of the day. After this document was executed all the. persons who had accompanied the prosecutrix in the taxi from her village to Dharamsala then proceeded to Kangra where they had their meals. From Kangra the appellant took the prosecutrix to the house of his maternal uncle Tara Chand who was tried for the offence under section 368 I.P.C. along with the appellant. The other two accused, namely, Fauja Singh and Bhajan Singh parted company at Kangra.