MOTI RAM Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 5.4.2016 rendered by the learned Special Judge, Mandi in Sessions Trial No. 13/2015, whereby by the appellant/accused (hereinafter referred to as the "accused"), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further under undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 4 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act read with Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for one month under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that PW10 prosecutrix is minor daughter of PW9 Devinder Kumar from his first marriage. She was born on 5.11.1999. PW9 Devinder Kumar solemnized another marriage with PW8 Kala Devi. On 20.1.2015, the prosecutrix was playing in the passage. The accused gave her Rs.20/- and took her to a cow-shed. He committed forcible sexual intercourse with her in the cow-shed. On 23.1.2015, the prosecutrix disclosed the incident to PW8 Kala Devi. PW9 Devinder Kumar had gone to Janjehali and when he came back, PW8 Kala Devi disclosed everything to him. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the police and FIR, Ext.PW13/A was registered. The matter was investigated and the challan was put up in the trial court after completing all codal formalities.

(3.) Prosecution examined as many as nineteen witnesses, in all, to prove its case against the accused. Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded, in which he pleaded that he has been falsely implicated. The learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused vide impugned judgment dated 5.4.2016, as stated hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal.