LAWS(HPH)-2007-6-7

SAFI MOHAMAD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On June 21, 2007
SAFI MOHAMAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was put on trial, under Sections 376 and 506 of the indian Penal Code, in the Court of Additional sessions Judge, Ghumarwin, District bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 60/7 of 2005/ 2004, for committing rape on his daughter-in-law, continuously for about three months against her wishes. On the conclusion of the trial the Additional Sessions Judge held him guilty and passed the sentence as under : under Section 376 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo imprisonment for three months under Section 506 IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo imprisonment for one month.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that: shaukat Ali the husband of the prosecutrix (name withheld) was an employee in a hotel at Manali. The prosecutrix was residing with her two minor children, aged about 8 and 6 years in village Kuthera Malangan in Nalagarh with father-in-law, the appellant. Her mother-in-law had expired long back. It was alleged that about a month prior to lodging of FIR (Ex. PW-10/a) dated 9-8-2004 the appellant had been committing rape upon her for the last about three months and she had been put under threats and was not allowed to move out of her matrimonial house. Though she had informed her husband telephonically about the incident but of no avail. She contacted Smt. Bago Devi, her sister-in-law who in turn informed the fact to Noordeen (PW), father of the prosecutrix. He obtained search warrants from S. D. M. Nalagarh pursuant to which she along with the children was produced before the SDM aforesaid on 10-7-2004. Her statement was recorded wherein she alleged rape having been committed by the appellant upon her for the last about three months, though no action was taken by the SDM, on her statement, which he was required to do, yet she was allowed to join the company of her parents.

(3.) WHEN the police had just started investigation, on lodging the FIR on 9-8-2004 shaukat Ali, husband of the prosecutrix, also obtained search warrants from the SDM ghumarwin, pursuant to which she was produced before the SDM Ghumarwin and she refused to go to the house of her in-laws to this effect her statement (Ex. DW-4/c) was recorded. The police got the prosecutrix medically examined on 10-8-2004. Her wearing apparels were taken into possession and sent for forensic examination to fsl Junga. The (sic) had recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, under Section 161 Cr. P. C. The accused was arrested on 16-8-2004. On getting the report from FSL Junga (Ex. PX-1), the police had presented the challan before the learned additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, ghumarwin, who committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge for trial.