RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been instituted against Judgment dated 5.5.2015 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur (H.P.) Circuit Court at Barsar, in Sessions Trial No. 08 of 2014, whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences under Section 376 read with Sections 511 and 354(C) IPC, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, for offence under Section 354(C). He has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for the commission of offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 11.7.2014, prosecutrix alongwith her sister visited the Police Station, Barsar, and reported to the police vide application Ext. PW- 1/A that she was a permanent resident of village Samtana, Tehsil Barsar, District Hamirpur. On 11.7.2014, at about 11.00 AM, she after doing her agriculture work in the fields was taking bath in the courtyard of village after raising a curtain with a bed sheet. While taking bath, accused came there. She, on seeing him, sat down and told the accused not to come there as she was bathing. But accused came to her and caught hold of her from her leg and then pushed her down on the ground. She fell down on her back. Accused removed his pajama and when he was in the process of removing his underwear, she got up and on making a noise, tried to run away but the accused caught hold of her from her leg and then dragged her on the ground. In the meantime, her niece Sangeeta reached there. Other persons namely Satya Devi, Santosh Kumari and Kamla also reached the spot. Accused ran away. She disclosed to them that the accused, on finding her naked and alone, attempted to commit rape on her but could not succeed as they had come in the meantime. She received injuries on her back, neck and leg. On the basis of application, FIR Ext. PW-12/A was registered.

(3.) Prosecution examined as many as thirteen 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.