MOHINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by accused against the judgment dated 20.7.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, in Sessions trial No. 21 -S/7 of 1999 convicting the Appellant - accused under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC and sentencing him rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. On realization of the fine, the same shall be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant has been ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 7.12.1998 there was marriage function in the house of one Madho Ram at village Salogra near Solan. PW -1 Prosecutrix alongwith her brother PW -3 Mohan Lal and other members of the family were also there. The Appellant -accused was also one of the invitees in the marriage function. At about 9.00 p.m. one girl Seema requested prosecutrix to accompany her to toilet and accordingly prosecutrix alongwith Seema went to the backyard of the house of said Madho Ram. As soon as prosecutrix and Seema reached the backyard of the house of Madho Ram the accused also emerged on the spot. He allegedly gripped the prosecutrix from behind by her hair and gagged her mouth. He pushed the prosecutrix down and gave teeth bites on her both cheeks to satisfy his sexual urge. The accused placed his hands on the string of her Salwar and forcibly tried to denude her for committing sexual intercourse with her. The prosecutrix resisted the accused and did not allow him to succeed in his attempt to ravish her. She also raised shrieks. Seema whom prosecutrix had accompanied to the backyard had already ran away from the spot. On hearing the cries of prosecutrix, her brother PW -3 Mohan Lal accompanied by PW -4 Sunder Singh reached there. He saw his sister in the grip of accused. PW -3 and PW -4 over - powered the accused, liberated the prosecutrix from the grip and took the accused to the courtyard where many other people had already gathered.

(3.) I have heard Mr. K.S. Pathania, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the -record. It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. The learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the material on record. The girl Seema who was allegedly with the prosecutrix has not been examined. PW -4 Sunder Singh and PW -3 Mohan Lal are not independent witnesses. The medical evidence does not prove the injuries on the person of the prosecutrix as alleged. There are material contradictions in the prosecution story. No case under Section 511 read with Section 376 IPC is made out from the prosecution story. Lastly, he has submitted that the sentence imposed is excessive. The learned Additional Advocate General has supported the impugned judgment.