JAGDISH KUMAR @ KAKA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Court whereby the appellant has been convicted of offences under Sections 342 and 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months, in respect of offence under Section 376 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for offence under Section 342 IPC.

(2.) PROSECUTION version, as per record, is like this. Houses of the appellant and the parents of the victim of the alleged crime are situated opposite each other. In between the two houses is a common courtyard. The children of the two households play in that common courtyard. The victim of the crime, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the girl, was aged less than four years at the relevant time. On 19.8.2002, she had been playing in the company of her brother, who is elder to her by a couple of years, in the aforesaid courtyard. The mother of the girl was busy at that time doing some household chores. The grandmother of the girl was busy washing clothes, on one side of the courtyard, where there is a water tap. Around 1 p.m., the mother and the grandmother of the girl heard her cries, upon which the mother of the girl proceeded towards the room on the upper storey of the house of the appellant, because the cries were erupting from that room. In the meanwhile, the appellant came down carrying the girl in his arms. The mother of the girl noticed blood stains on the ankle of the girl. She also found that the string of her (girl's) Salwar had been loosened. On examining the private parts of the girl she noticed that blood was oozing from the vagina. The condition of the girl was noticed by her grandmother also. The father of the girl was not at home, as he had gone to a nearby village in connection with his work. He was informed telephonically. He reached around 2.30 or 3 p.m. At that time, the appellant, his mother and his maternal aunt were also there. The father of the girl enquired from the appellant as to what had happened. He replied arrogantly that he had done what he wanted to do and he (the father of the girl) was free to take whatever action he wished. Thereafter, the father of the girl alongwith the girl proceeded towards the Police Station to lodge the report. Sensing that they would be in trouble, initially the mother and the maternal aunt and then the appellant also started pleading with the father of the girl for pardoning the appellant. At that time several persons of the village were there. They included PW-6 Urmila Devi, PW-7 Sunehru Devi and PW-8 Chamela Ram. Ultimately, the father of the girl went to the Police Station. He covered the distance partly on foot upto a place called Nabahi and partly by bus from Nabahi to Sarkaghat. Mother of the girl also went with him. Girl was taken along. Report was lodged with the Police.

(3.) PROSECUTION examined the mother, the grandmother, the father and some residents of the village, besides the doctors to bring the charge home to the appellant. Mother of the girl Veena Devi appeared as PW-1, grandmother of the girl Kirpi Devi appeared as PW-5 and the father of the girl Ramesh Kumar appeared as PW-4. All of them fully supported the prosecution version, as summarized hereinabove.