PINKU Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 11.1.2016 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Chamba Division Chamba (HP) in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2015, whereby appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences under Sections 342, 366A, 376 and 506 IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act' for convenience sake), has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 366A IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for six months. He has been convicted and sentenced under Section 342 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month. He has further been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- for offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. Though the accused has been convicted under Section 376 IPC, but no sentence separately has been passed under Section 376 IPC in view of the fact that he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 4 of the POCSO Act to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 26.12.2014, prosecutrix alongwith her mother Smt. Bhagtu and Uncle Ramesh Chand reported to the police that the prosecutrix was a student of 6th class. On 24.12.2014, when she had gone to fetch water from the tap, accused came there and asked the prosecutrix to accompany him to his house for bringing some articles from the shop. Prosecutrix refused but accused forcibly caught hold of her hand and dragged her to his house. He threatened to do away with her life. Prosecutrix was locked in the room and accused threatened her with a knife and after locking the room from outside, he went to the house of his maternal aunt (Massi). Accused returned at 6 PM and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. On the next day, during day time, he has committed sexual intercourse with her. At about 7 PM he left her in front of her house and threatened to do away with her life, in case she disclosed the incident. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother. Matter was reported to Lady Constable Shelja. FIR was registered. Site plan was prepared. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded. Prosecutrix was medically examined. Accused was also examined. Investigation was completed. Challan was put in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.

(3.) Prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. He has denied the case of the prosecution. Accused was convicted and sentenced as noticed above. Hence, this appeal.