KISHORI LAL Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Kishori Lal (hereinafter referred to as the accused) was booked by the police of Police Station Tissa, District Chamba for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 376 & 506 IPC vide FIR No. 24/2014 with the allegation that on 21.2.2014 around 11:00 AM at a place, namely, Village Dogru, he restrained the prosecutrix (name withheld) from going to her house at Village Birmohi, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba on way back from the shop of PW-5 Chuhdu Ram situated at Village Bahnota and dragged her inside the bushes where she was subjected to sexual intercourse against her will and without her consent.

(2.) Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the accused has questioned the legality and validity thereof on the grounds, inter alia that for want of cogent and reliable evidence, no findings of conviction could have been recorded against him. The sole testimony of the prosecutrix relied upon against him is not reliable and rather false which in the given facts and circumstances of this case could have not been made basis to record findings of conviction against him. The prosecutrix had relations with him which were known to each and everyone in the village. There was no question of she having been subjected to sexual intercourse by him without her consent and against her will. PW-2 Jagdei has categorically deposed that the prosecutrix was having relations with the accused. Her testimony has erroneously been brushed aside. The alleged place of occurrence is 2 km. from the house of the prosecutrix and as such she could have not been taken to such a distance forcibly by dragging. The prosecutrix was consenting party to sexual intercourse with him and the matter was reported by her to the police falsely when her husband came to know about it. The version of the prosecutrix that after purchasing household articles from the shop of PW-5 Chuhdu Ram she was on the way to her house, hardly inspire any confidence as the I.O. while in the witness box has stated that she was subjected to sexual intercourse at a place 2 km. away, that too in opposite direction from the house of the prosecutrix.

(3.) The grouse of the accused, therefore, in a nut shell, is that learned trial Court has erroneously relied upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix which hardly inspire any confidence. The findings of conviction recorded against the accused are stated to be perverse, hence not legally sustainable.