STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. LEKH RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the judgment dated 5.10.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 1 -NL/7 of 2009, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v/s. Lekh Ram, whereby respondent accused stands acquitted, State has filed the present appeal under the provisions of Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is the case of prosecution that M/s. Unichem Laboratories had two guest houses at Baddi. Accused Lekh Ram was posted as a Security Guard at Guest House No. 80. Jai Parkash (PW -6) while being posted as an Administrative Officer was occupying the top floor of the guest house, whereas remaining two stories were used for the visiting guests. Sudarshan Paridha (PW -4), husband of the prosecutrix (PW -3) also employed as a cook by the said Company was posted at the adjacent guest house owned by the Company. On 30.8.2008 when Jai Parkash left for Shimla, accused went to the house of Sudarshan Paridha and asked him to send his wife i.e. the prosecutrix to the house of Jai Parkash for cleaning the utensils and washing clothes. Consequently prosecutrix went to Guest House No. 80. While she was washing the clothes, accused after entering the room forcibly subjected her to sexual intercourse. Prosecutrix resisted his overt acts as a result of which he sustained injuries on his nose and ear. After the incident, by freeing herself, prosecutrix reported the incident to Sudarshan Paridha, who in turn confronted the accused with the same. Two officers of the employer company visited the spot and the matter was reported to the police. F.I.R. 143/2008, dated 30.8.2008 (Ext. PW -4/A) was registered at Police Station Baddi, Distt. Solan, H.P., against the accused under the provisions of Ss. 376, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Investigation was got conducted by ASI Tapinder Kumar (PW -10). Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Neeraj Rajan (PW -5) who issued MLC (Ext. PW -5/B) and opined that possibility of recent sexual activity could not be ruled out. Accused was also got medically examined from Dr. Naveen Kataria (PW -7) who issued MLC (Ext. PW -7/B). Report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga (Ext. PX) was obtained. Investigation revealed, complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, hence challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(2.) Accused was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Ss. 376, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) In order to prove its case, in all, prosecution examined ten witnesses and statement of the accused under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which he took the following defence: