PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is aggrieved by the judgment of the Fast Track Court, whereby he has been convicted of offences, under Sections 376, 342 and 506 IPC and sentenced as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_249_TLHPH0_2007.htm</FRM>

(2.) FIRST , the prosecution version may be noticed. On 18.3.2006, prosecutrix, who was then aged about 21 years, was all Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? alone in the house, as her two sisters-in-law (Jethanis) had gone to the forest to collect fodder for the cattle. The prosecutrix had been left behind for cooking meals and for taking care of the cattle. Around 11 or 11.30 a.m., when she was there in the cattle-shed, which is at some distance from the house, the appellant went there, bolted the door from inside and also placed a bamboo ladder, which was available in the cattle-shed, against the door so that it could not be opened and then forcibly removed the Salwar of the prosecutrix and tore her shirt and committed rape on her. The prosecutrix cried for help, but there being no habitation nearby, nobody came to her rescue. However, the two sisters-in-law of the prosecutrix, who had gone to the forest, returned in the meanwhile. When they were at a distance of 50-60 yards, they heard the cries of some one, but could not make out who was crying. When they reached near the cattle-shed (as the passage leading to their house is by the side of the cattle-shed), they again heard the cries and realized that it was their younger sister-in-law who had been crying. They peeped into the cattle-shed through the chinks of the door and saw that the appellant-accused was mounted on the prosecutrix and was committing rape on her. One of her sisters-in-law, named Sudarshna Devi (PW-3), then went to call one Raju from his shop for help. After 10-15 minutes Raju came and he also saw the appellant, as also the prosecutrix, in the cattle-shed. He saw that the prosecutrix was naked in the lower portion of her body, that is to say, she was not wearing Salwar. The appellant threatened Raj Kumar that in case he came nearby he would kill him. Thereafter, the appellant wore his pants and ran away. Satya Devi (PW-4), Member of the Gram Panchayat, was also called to the spot. She noticed an injury on the ear of the prosecutrix. She then informed the Pradhan of the Panchayat, PW-7 Udham Singh, who advised the prosecutrix to approach the police. A complaint was got written by the prosecutrix on the spot and with that complaint she went to Police Post Thural in the company of one of the elder brothers of her husband. It may be stated that the husband of the prosecutrix was employed those days at a Dhaba at some distant place in Punjab State. The Police arrested the appellant on the next following day and got him medically examined. The Doctor opined that there was nothing to suggest that he was incapable of committing sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix was also got medically examined. She being a married lady and exposed to sexual intercourse on that count, the Doctor could not give definite opinion whether rape had been committed or not. The Police recovered from the spot, the string of Salwar and some pieces of broken bangles of the prosecutrix. They also recovered the shirt of the prosecutrix, which was torn. Clothes of the prosecutrix and the appellant were sent to the Chemical Examiner. Semen was noticed on the underwear of the appellant by the Chemical Examiner, per his report Ex. PA.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent, and gone through the record.