JAGAT RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi, dated 9.3.2007, vide which the appellant was held guilty under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on 19.11.2005, one Paras Ram accompanied by his brother Bhawani Dutt and Bhanji Kumari P. (name not mentioned) came to the police station and lodged a report with the police. He alleged that the prosecutrix was aged about 13 years and she came to her mother on 18.11.2005 and told her that three days prior to Diwali when her younger brother and sister were sleeping, her father gave her a tablet and she slept in a sound sleep and on the next morning, she got up with pain in her private part and blood was also oozing out. She narrated these facts to her chachi who did not react. On the next day, when she slept in the room and her father picked her up and committed bura kaam with her. She raised an alarm and her chaha came from the other room and took her to the other portion of the house and made her sleep. On the third day, her father again called her who was standing naked and she ran away and stayed in the house of her taya for about 16 -17 days and thereafter she went to her mother who was living apart and the report was lodged with the police. On this report, a case under Section 376 IPC was registered against the father of the prosecutrix, the present appellant and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who committed the case and the case was decided by the learned trial Court leading to the conviction of the appellant, as detailed above.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant were that the learned trial Court, in coming to its findings holding the appellant guilty, has been swayed by the fact the allegations made are against the father and the learned trial Court has imposed a moral conviction rather then appreciating the evidence in legal manner. It was also submitted that on the first day, the prosecutrix was having fever and he medicine was given by her father but there is nothing that she had been seen him committing the rape upon her. However, in regard to the assertions that on the second day she was raped, she did not narrate the incident to her chacha or the grand father living in the same house and rather than going to her mother, who was staying in her parents house, she went to her taya stayed there for about 16 -17 days and there has been considerable delay. No specific arguments were advanced in regard to the delay in question, but it was submitted that her conduct appears to be unnatural that she did not go to her mother but went to her taya and lodged the report subsequently. It was further submitted that the term used by the prosecutrix was bura kaam which does not prove that the rape was committed upon her and at the most, the appellant can be said to be liable for the offence of attempt to rape or sexual assault only.