NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th July, 2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan whereby Naresh Kumar - appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Code. The learned Sessions Judge, Solan has sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that on 14th May, 2001 one Anupama, the prosecutrix, who was 15 years of age and studying in the 8th class in Government High School Pwab, had gone to the 'Ghasni' (grass land) to graze cattle and collect wood for fuel. When she returned home at about 12 noon with the cattle she found that four of the cattle heads had not reached the house and therefore, she again returned back to the 'Ghasni' to locate the missing cattle. The accused, who is also stated to be a resident of the same village, was also grazing his cattle there and when the prosecutrix reached the 'Ghasni', he came from behind near the 'Ghasni' and gripped the prosecutrix by the arms and threw her on the ground. Thereafter, he loaded himself on her body and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix raised shrieks but the accused did not release her from his grip. The father of the prosecutrix came there in the meantime and gave three slaps to the accused and saved the prosecutrix from his clutches. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to the Police Station, Darlaghat for registration of the case and F.I.R. No. 24/2001 dated 14th May, 2001 under Section 376 I. P. C. was lodged at Police Station, Darlaghat, Tehsil Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The charge was framed against the accused on 15th October, 2001. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid . Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) In support of the case of the prosecution 13 witnesses were produced and documentary evidence was tendered. The accused also produced two witnesses in his defence.