JANGLI RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is instituted against the judgment and order dated 5/8.7.2013, rendered by the learned Sessions Judge (Forests), Shimla, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 25 -S/7 of 2012, whereby the appellant -accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that PW -1 Vidya Devi, PW -2 Murat Singh alongwith the prosecutrix and three sons were putting up at Malyana as tenants. PW -2 Murat Singh was working as mason. He was having one room and one kitchen. The prosecutrix was student of second class in the year 2012. Her date of birth was 18.10.2004, as per the birth certificate Ext. PW -10/B and family register Ext. PW -10/C. On 26.4.2012, the marriage of the brother of Yashpal, who was residing in the neighborhood of PW -2 Murat Singh had been fixed. It was attended by him. PW -1 Vidya Devi alongwith the children stayed back in the house. The accused also attended the marriage alongwith PW -8 Atma Ram. Thereafter, PW -2 Murat Singh, PW -8 Atma Ram and other persons consumed liquor in the marriage. Accused went to the house of PW -2 Murat Singh to spend night. During night, accused alongwith two sons of PW -1 Vidya Devi and PW -2 Murat Singh had slept on single bed in the kitchen and one son and prosecutrix had slept on the floor in the room where the accused was sleeping. At about 11:00 PM, prosecutrix cried for help and on hearing her cries, PW -1 Vidya Devi went to the room and switched on the light. She noticed that accused was standing in the room and zip of his pant was open. PW -1 Vidya Devi also noticed blood on the legs of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the accused escaped from the spot. PW -1 Vidya Devi narrated the incident to PW -2 Murat Singh. The prosecutrix had disclosed that wrong thing was done with her private part by the accused. Thereafter, PW -2 Murat Singh went in search of the accused alongwith PW -3 Roshan Lal but they could not find the accused. The police recorded the statement of PW -1 Vidya Devi and FIR Ext. PW -9/A was registered. The prosecutrix was examined by PW -5 Dr. Geetika. She issued the MLC Ext. PW -5/B. The clothes of the prosecutrix were taken into possession. These were sent to FSL. The opinion of the FSL is Ext. PW -5/C. The police also took photographs of the spot. The accused was arrested. He was also got medically examined. The matter was investigated and challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) MR . N.S. Chandel, Advocate, for the accused has 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, appearing for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 5/8.7.2013.