ANEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OFHIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused/convict (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") laying challenge to judgment, dated 21.04.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, Camp at Reckong Peo, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 2007, whereby he was convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366A and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").

(2.) Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution, are that on 01.09.2017 complainant, Shri Nek Ram (father of the prosecutrix) alongwith his brother, Gulab Chand and one Vijay Chand reported that he is resident of village Grange and works as Chowkidar in Government Senior Secondary School, Nichar. As per the complainant, his daughter, prosecutrix (name withheld), aged 15 years, who was studying in 7th standard left the school for about a month. On 28.08.2007, all the family members, after taking dinner, slept and the prosecutrix also slept in her separate room. On subsequent morning, the complainant found his daughter missing and despite best efforts she could not be traced. On 01.09.2007 the complainant came to know that friend of one Madan Lal son of Ram Sukh, resident of Rohru area on 28.08.2007 took the prosecutrix with him after alluring her that he will marry her. On the basis of the complaint, so made by the complainant, police machinery was set into motion and during the course of investigation the police found the prosecutrix in the house of the accused at village Batwari (Rohru), thus the accused was arrested on 03.09.2007 and prosecutrix was handed over to the complainant. The prosecutrix refused to get herself medically examined. The accused was medically examined and subsequently the prosecutrix also assented for her medical examination. As per her medical examination, possibility of sexual intercourse was not ruled out by the doctor. On the basis of ossification test, age of the prosecutrix was opined between 15 to 15-1/2 years. After thoroughly investigating the matter, the police found involvement of the accused for the commission of the offence under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC, thus challan was prepared and presented in the Court.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as seventeen witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein he denied the prosecution case and claimed innocence, however, the accused did not examine any defence witness.