RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Solan dated 30.9.2005 whereby he has convicted the accused of the offences punishable under Section 376 read with Section 506 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376 I.P.C. and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 506 I.P.C.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 1.9.2002 the prosecutrix had taken her cattle for grazing in a forest behind her house. The accused who was known to the prosecutrix having studied in the same school came there and asked her to accompany him to the bushes Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes below the road. On her refusal he picked up the prosecutrix, gagged her mouth, took her to the bushes and after laying her on the ground opened the Nara of her Salwar and then raped her. When she tried to raise an alarm, he gagged her mouth and after raping her he threatened her that in case she disclosed the incident to anyone he would kill her. The prosecutrix thereafter collected her cattle and came to her house and narrated the entire incident to her mother. The mother in turn told her own mother (maternal grand mother of the prosecutrix) about the incident. Be it stated that the father of the prosecutrix is dead. The grand mother of the prosecutrix then disclosed the incident to her husband i.e. maternal grand father of the prosecutrix. Next day the grand father of the prosecutrix along with another son-in-law and the prosecutrix went to the Police Station where the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded and F.I.R. Ext.PA was lodged. The prosecutrix thereafter was sent for medical examination. Since the prosecutrix belongs to a Scheduled Caste, case under Section 376 read with Section 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered against the accused.

(3.) SHRI Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant / accused, contends that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Alternatively he submits that from the evidence on record it is clear that the prosecutrix was a consenting party to the sexual act and no case of rape is made out.