THAKUR DASS Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the State of H.P.? against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, dated 28.6.2001/29.6.2001, vide which the appellant was held guilty under Section 376 I.P.C. and was sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that on a complaint filed by one ˜A (name not mentioned) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli. F.I.R. under Section 376/420 IPC was registered by the police on 8.6.1999 in pursuance of the order passed by the Court under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. In the said complaint, the complainant alleged that she joined as student in Micro Tech. Computer Education Institute owned by the appellant on 11.6.1997. It was alleged that the appellant started developing friendship with her and promised to marry with the complainant. In the month of August, 1997, the complainant was called by the appellant to his institute on Sunday and when she was working on the computer system, she was picked up by the accused who took her to a partitioned portion of the hall of institute where he had put bed. It was further alleged that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent. She alleged that her mouth was gagged and she could not raise any hue and cry. Thereafter, the appellant had been promising to have marriage with the complainant and had been having continued sexual indulgence with the complainant. The complainant believed the appellant. The appellant had been postponing the promise of marriage on one pretext or other and the appellant continued to have sexual relations with the complainant on this false promise of marriage. The complainant became pregnant and she aborted on 3.10.1998 due to the medicines given to her at the instance of the appellant. The appellant promised to marry the complainant as per writing dated 12.5.1999 after six months, but after the expiry of six months, the complainant filed the present complainant, on which FIR was registered on 8.6.1999. The case was registered by the police. After investigation, the Challan was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to learned Sessions Judge, Solan, who tried the appellant under Sections 376/420 IPC leading to his conviction as detailed above.

(3.) THE submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant were that the appellant has been charged sheeted for having committed rape upon the prosecutrix during intervening period from August, 1997 till July, 1998 and onwards and on various occasions at the premises of the computer institute. It was submitted that the prosecutrix had told one date only when she was alleged raped by the appellant i.e. on 20.8.1997. Thereafter, her statement is in general and she has not stated any specific dates when she was raped. It was submitted that manner in which the prosecutrix had alleged that she was raped by the appellant on 20.8.1997 makes her statement not credible since it was not possible for the appellant to have carried the prosecutrix from one room to another room since the girl was of the age of 25 years and the appellant was of the similar age. It was submitted that rape was committed allegedly in the computer institute situate in a busy place and in case, the prosecutrix had raised an alarm, she could have asked for help of some persons and the manner in which the rape was alleged to have been committed upon her does not inspire confidence that her version is correct. There is nothing in her statement that the appellant has promised the prosecutrix that he will marry her before sexual intercourse committed upon her and the promise to marry, if any, as allegedly given subsequently and, therefore, since the appellant was a consenting party, the prosecution has failed to prove that it was a rape committed upon her. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also referred to some infirmities in the prosecution case, which makes her version doubtful and has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are liable to be reversed and the appeal deserves to be allowed.