STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. BAL KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnuar at Rampur Bushahr, in Session Trial No. 40-S/7 of 2005, dated 12.07.2007, vide which judgment, learned trial Court has acquitted the accused for commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC, on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused and that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that on 18.06.2005, at around 1:15 p.m., Tilka Devi made a report at Police Station Ani, District Kullu to the effect that she was married to Bir Singh about 10 years ago and after divorce she was residing with her parents at village Jabo. Prosecutrix, aged about 7 years was her youngest daughter and was residing with her. Her elder daughter was residing with her maternal uncle at Shimla. As per complainant, on 05.06.2005, she had gone to bring grass from the field and her daughter (prosecutrix) was in her house. When she came back from the fields, at about 5:30 p.m., her daughter (prosecutrix) started weeping loudly and when she inquired from her then she (prosecutrix) told that her maternal uncle Bal Krishan had caught hold of her and took her inside the house and did something in her private parts, due to which, she felt severe pain. Complainant checked private parts of prosecutrix and found that blood was oozing out from the private parts of prosecutrix and there were blue marks on the adjoining parts. She could not believe this as accused was son of her uncle and was maternal uncle of the prosecutrix, so she did not discuss it with any person so that there might not be any social stigma to her family. Thereafter she went to the house of accused but he was not found there. Complainant thought of discussing the said incident with her real brother who was to come on Saturday, however, he did not come on Saturday. In the meanwhile, the prosecutrix was not taking meal and appeared upset. Complainant was an illiterate lady and had no knowledge that she was required to report the matter in the Police Station immediately neither she was having telephone number. Swarup Chand, brother of complainant, came on 17.6.2005 at around 7:00 p.m. and she thereafter disclosed the entire episode to him who asked her as to why she did not report the matter to the police. Thereafter, complainant went to Police Station, Ani, alongwith her brother Swarup Chand and the prosecutrix and the report was lodged, on the basis of which, case was registered against the accused under Sections 376 and 511 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). Investigation was thereafter conducted. Prosecutrix was got medically examined and after the completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for having committed the offence under Section 376 of IPC and as a prima-facie case was found against the accused, accordingly he was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses.