ANIL THAKUR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are instituted against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2014 & 26.8.2014, respectively, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 18 -S/7 of 2012, whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. In default of payment of fine, the convict was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each. Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 2015 was filed by Sh. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate against the judgment and order dated 8.8.2014 and 26.8.2014, respectively under the legal aid and Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2014 has been filed by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, against the same judgment.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that accused Anil Thakur was working with Sh. Yash Pal Thakur, as driver. The accused was on visiting terms with Ramesh Chand, the father of the prosecutrix. He used to visit the house of the prosecutrix quite often. In the month of October, 2011, the accused had proposed for friendship with the prosecutrix. She declined the same. The accused kept on asking the prosecutrix for entering into friendship with him, time and again and had also promised to marry her, upon which, she accepted his offer of friendship. In the month of December, 2011, when the house tests were on, the prosecutrix had gone to take tuition in village Rampur. After her tuition time, she was going on foot to her school and near the school, the accused met her. He took her towards the Veterinary Hospital to a lonely place in between the bushes. This place could not be seen. The accused committed rape upon her twice. The accused had also raped her again once or twice thereafter. On 16.12.2012, the prosecutrix had gone to the forest to collect fuel wood. At about 12 noon, the accused came to the forest and raped her there. Every time, whenever the accused committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, he used to threaten to commit suicide in case she reported about such occurrence to anyone. He also used to commit sexual intercourse with her by assuring her to marry her. When the prosecutrix came home, she was asked by her parents as to why she was so late. She told her parents that she was with the accused in the forest, who raped her. The parents of the prosecutrix contacted the accused and asked him to marry their daughter. But, he threatened them to do away with their lives and told them that they were scheduled castes and he was Thakur. Thereafter, the prosecutrix and her parents went to Police Post Dagshai and reported the matter to the police. FIR Ext. PW -7/A was registered on the basis of the report. The prosecutrix was taken for medical examination on the basis of application Ext. PW -4/A. Dr. Poonam Sharma has issued MLC Ext. PW -4/B. The doctor gave the final opinion vide Ext. PW -4/D. The clothes of the prosecutrix i.e. shirt, pazami/salwar Ext. P -2 and P -3, respectively, were produced by Ramesh Chand, the father of the prosecutrix, before the police. The date of birth certificate and Scheduled Caste certificate were obtained by the police. The accused was also examined. The FSL Junga has sent the reports Ext. PX and PY to the police. On completion of the investigation, challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) MR . Sanjeev Bhushan Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate, for the accused have vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Addl. Advocate General, for the State has supported the judgment/order of the learned trial Court dated 8/26.8.2014.