STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State has appealed against the judgment dated 12.1.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.23 -S/7 of 2009, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ram Singh, challenging the acquittal of respondent Ram Singh (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who stands charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Through the testimonies of Jai Dev Sharma (PW -1), Smt. Meena Kumari (PW -2) (mother of the prosecutrix) and prosecutrix (PW -3), prosecution wants the Court to believe that on 28.6.2009, accused Ram Singh sexually assaulted the prosecutrix, aged 5 years. Same day, on the basis of report lodged by Smt. Meena Kumari, FIR No.108 dated 28.6.2009 (Ex.PD), for commission of offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, came to be registered at Police Station Shimla West, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Investigation conducted by SI Mathura Dass (PW -9) revealed that prosecutrix was residing with her parents in village Patiyud, Post Office, Anandpur, Tehsil and District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. Accused was sharing accommodation with Jai Dev Sharma (PW -1), brother in law of Smt. Meena Kumari. Prosecutrix used to frequently visit the house of Jai Dev Sharma, who, on 27.6.2009, had gone to his village Niun, Post Office Jai Nagar, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh. In the morning of 28.6.2009, prosecutrix went to the house of Jai Dev Sharma and finding her to be alone, accused sexually assaulted her. Prosecutrix narrated the incident to her mother, who, after contacting Jai Dev Sharma, lodged the report. Prosecutrix was got medially examined from Dr. (Mrs.) Asha Negi (PW -4), who issued MLC (Ex.PF). She found no evidence suggesting penetration. During investigation, police took into possession clothes of the prosecutrix, accused and the Chattai & Baithak. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.