MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has been convicted of offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian penal Code for allegedly raping a mentally retarded minor girl and then intimidating her that in case she informed anybody about the offence of rape, she would be done to death. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 376, I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence under Section 506, I.P.C. Appellant's grievance is that there is absolutely no evidence on record to justify his conviction.

(2.) CASE was registered against the appellant for offences under Section 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of a brother of the prosecutrix. His name is Devi Ram (PW-1). The report was lodged on 29.2.2004. It was reported that the prosecutrix, who was aged about 16 years, was of low I. Q. (Mand Budhi) and that she was incapable of taking care of herself to the extent that she was dependent upon others even for taking her bath and wash herself. She was also reported to be not capable of following things and unable to speak. Further, it was reported that five ­ six days back the mother of the lodger of the report told him that the prosecutrix had been taken to Primary Health Centre for check up and the doctor told that she was carrying four months' pregnancy. He further reported that thereafter he questioned the prosecutrix in local dialect and she told that during the preceding rainy season of school vacation, when she had gone to the forest to graze cattle, one Dinesh Kumar took her to a cave in the rocks and there he had sexual intercourse with her. It was also reported that ten ­ fifteen days thereafter the appellant also raped her, when she had gone to the cattle-shed situated close to the house of the appellant, to tether cattle and that after that also the appellant had three ­ four times committed sexual intercourse with her. She also allegedly told him, as per the report, that the appellant threatened her that in case she informed anybody about the rape, he would give her beating.

(3.) TRIAL Court charged the appellant with both the offences. Appellant pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. On the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Appellant denied that he had committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.