CHAIN RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these appeals filed under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant/convict has assailed the very same impugned judgment dated 25.3.2011, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 13 -S/7 of 2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Chain Ram, whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default thereof, further undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) IT is the case of prosecution that accused Chain Ram was married to Bhagpati through whom prosecutrix (PW -1) was born. During the subsistence of the first marriage accused married Rattu Devi and started residing with her in village Hiranh, Tehsil Chopal, Distt. Shimla, H.P. However, prosecutrix continued to reside with her real brother Atma Ram, bhabhi Reena Devi and mother who is not mentally stable, in village Khoni, Tehsil Jubbal, Distt. Shimla, H.P. On 2nd March, 2010, prosecutrix was taken by the accused to village Hiranh where twice he subjected her to sexual assault, which fact she disclosed to her friend Kaushalya Devi (PW -4) as also relative Kewal Ram (PW -3) and his wife Mathru Devi. When confronted, accused denied having committed any such act. Kewal Ram took the prosecutrix to Police Station, Nerwa, where on the basis of her statement, F.I.R. No. 15/2010, dated 7.3.2010 (Ext. P -C) was registered against the accused, under the provisions of Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. SI -SHO Sohan Lal (PW -7) got the prosecutrix medically examined from Dr. Mamta Mahajan (PW -8) who issued MLC (Ext. PW -8/A). The radiological age of the prosecutrix was also got determined from Dr. Susheel Pundir (PW -5). As per the medical opinion, prosecutrix was below 16 years of age and possibility of sexual assault could not be ruled out. Laceration was noticed on her private parts. The accused was also got medically examined. SI -Sohan Lal who conducted the necessary investigation, collected the incriminating material/articles; recorded statements of relevant witnesses. Scientific evidence was also collected. Investigation revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime. Hence, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) IN order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which he took up the following defence: