SHYAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant -accused (hereafter referred to as the accused) against the judgment dated 29.11.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur whereby the accused has been convicted and sentenced as follows: - Sr. No Penal Provision Sentence imposed.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix (PW -1) was studying in 7th standard in Middle School, Urman and was residing in a quarter at Jogni. On 22.11.2002, when was found missing and the matter about her missing was reported by Roshan Lal (PW -2), brother of the prosecutrix, at Police Station, Rampur, vide report Ext.PW -7/A on 27.11.2002. On 9.1.2003, a letter Mark PW -2/A purporting to have been written by DK Lala Chawai, Tehsil Ani, was received by Mohar Singh (PW -4), father of the prosecutrix. As per the contents of the said letter, a girl had been abducted from their area and attempts were being made to sell her. On the basis of a raid conducted by the police accompanied by PW -2, the prosecutrix was recovered from the quarter of the accused in village Chawai vide memo Ext.PW -2/B and on enquiries made by PW -2, PW -1 revealed that on the evening of 21.11.2002, the accused met her at Jogni and asked her to accompany him to Rampur and to return to Jogni on 22.11.2002. Thus, the accused on 22.11.2002 took the prosecutrix from Jogni to Nogli from where she was removed to Chawai. At Chawai, the accused kept her in his quarter, criminally intimidated her that in the event of her attempting to run away she would be done to death and because of the threat the prosecutrix could not return home. One day the prosecutrix narrated about her abduction to Rajinder Sood (PW -3), who wrote a letter to her father. While with the accused, the prosecutrix was subjected to rape by him. PW -2 accordingly reported the matter to the police vide report Ext.PW -2/A on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW -14/A was recorded at Police Station, Rampur. During investigation, shirt and Salwar of the prosecutrix and a Kambal were taken in possession vide memo Ext.PW -3/A from nside the premises from where the prosecutrix was recovered. Letter Mark PW -2/A was taken in possession vide memo Ext.PW -4/A. The prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Maninder Kumar (PW -10) and the MLC issued by him about such examination is Ext.PW -10/A. At the time of medical examination of the prosecutrix,l her undergarments containing stands, smear slide and pubic -hair were preserved and handed over to the police. On arrest, the accused was also medically examined by PW -10 vide MLC Ext.PW -10/B and his underwear and pubic -hair were also preserved and handed over to the police by PW -10. The Investigating Agency also collected evidence regarding of the prosecutrix consisting of certificate Ext.PW -6/A, copy of the Pariwar Register ExtPW -6/B and the date of birth of certificate Ext.PW -8/A issued by the Headmaster, Government Middle School, Urman, according to which the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 9.1.1987. The underwear, slide, pubic -hair, shirt and Salwar of the prosecutrix; underwear and pubic -hair of the accused and Kambal were sent for analysis to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, and as per the report Ext.PW -T4/C from the laboratory, no blood or semen was found in the underwear, slide, pubic -hair, shirt of the prosecutrix and the pubic -hair of the accused. On the underwear of the accused and Salwar of the prosecutrix human semen was found and on the Kambal human blood was found. On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet against the accused was filed by SHO, Police Station, Rampur, on the basis of which the accused came to be tried on a charge under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506, I PC.

(3.) To prove the charge against the accused, prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he denied the case of the prosecution as a whole and claimed to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case. The accused, however, did not lead any defence.