MOHIT KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -convict Mohit Kumar, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has assailed the judgment dated 27.9.2011/28.9.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Una, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 13 -VII -2010, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mohit Kumar, whereby he stands convicted for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) IT is the case of prosecution that on 5.3.2011 at about 7.30 p.m., prosecutrix (PW -1), resident of village Bidarwal, had gone to the fields to answer the call of nature. Accused Mohit and co -accused Sahil forcibly took away the prosecutrix on the motorcycle. In his farm house (Bara), accused Mohit Kumar subjected the prosecutrix to sexual assault. After the incident, prosecutrix returned home and narrated the incident to her family members. Complaint (Ex. PW -1/A) was lodged, on the basis of which FIR No. 47 dated 6.3.2011 (Ex. PW -6/A), for an offence under the provisions of Section 376(G) of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh. ASI Prem Lal (PW -5) and SI Baldev Ram (PW -6) conducted the investigation. Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Sonia (PW -7), who issued MLC (Ex. PW -7/A). With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial against accused Mohit Kumar. Co -accused Sahil, being minor, proceedings against him were initiated under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.

(3.) IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and statement of the accused, under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was also recorded, in which he took the following defence: