RAJ PAL Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Sessions Judge, Hamirpur convicting the appellant under Section 376, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. Other accused, namely, Sukh Dev, Jaishi Ram, Karam Chand, Shakuntla Devi, Pinglan Devi and Madan Lal have been acquitted. No appeal against their acquittal has been filed by the State.

(2.) Sunita Devi (hereafter prosecutrixT) is the daughter of Raghunath of village Patnaun. She was living with Pinglan Devi (maternal grand mother) in village Bhira since the start of her schooling. In December, 1991, she was studying in 6th Class. She had pregnancy of 7 months when checked at Community Health Centre, Barsar. Accordingly, she was brought to the house of her parents. It came out that accused Raj Pal, a next door neighbour of Smt. Pinglan Devi and related to the prosecutrix as maternal uncle, had been committing sexual intercourse with her. Consequently, a case under Section 376, Indian Penal Code was registered against him at Police Station, Hamirpur on January 15, 1992. On January 16, 1992, the prosecutrix gave birth to a female child at District Hospital, Hamirpur but it died on January 17, 1992.

(3.) The investigation revealed that the prosecutrix was born on February 17, 1979 and her age was between 12 to 15 years in 1991 when she was sexually assaulted by accused Raj Pal between April, 1991 to June 1991. It was also found that in December, 1991, mother of accused Raj Pal Smt. Biasan Devi alongwith Smt. Veena Devi, had taken the prosecutrix to Hamirpur for abortion but the private doctor refused to undertake the exercise without the consent of her guardian. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was taken to the house of Pinglan Devi. Accused Jaishi Ram, Karam Chand, Smt. Shakuntla Devi, Pinglan Devi and Madan Lal took the prosecutrix to Barsar for keeping her in the house of accused Sukh Dev till she delivered the child. However, accused Sukh Dev also committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix at Barsar and in his village Tihri. After completing the investigation, seven accused were found responsible for the commission of crime and were challaned by the police for offences under Ss. 366/376/109, Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed against accused Raj Pal and Sukh Dev for offence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code while the other accused were charged for offence under Section 366/109, Indian Penal Code. All the accused denied the charge and claimed trial. The accused not only denied the prosecution case against them but also examined eight witnesses in defence. The trial ended in the conviction of accused Raj Pal only and he was sentenced as recorded in the preceding part of this judgment while the other accused have been acquitted. This appeal assails the judgment of Sessions Judge.