ARJUN SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning the conviction for offence punishable under Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 and Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (in short the ˜IPC).

(3.) THE prosecution versions during trial is as follows : - The prosecutrix, aged 32 years, was married to a man, who was employed at a butchers shop at Baijnath. Her husband fell ill and was perhaps rendered incapable of doing the job with the butcher. The prosecutrix approached the butcher for employing her son, who was then aged just eleven years, for doing odd jobs. The butcher offered to employ her son for grazing his sheep and goats on monthly salary of Rs. 700/ -. On 3.6.2002 the prosecutrix took her son to the butchers shop at Baijnath with the intention of leaving him there. Her son was required to take the sheep and goats to the forest, by the employer, immediately after they reached. The prosecutrix accompanied her son to the forest. They returned with the herd in the evening. But then the last bus going towards the village of the prosecutrix, had already left. The butcher offered that she could stay with her son in the upper storey of the shop for the night. She accepted the offer. Around 9.30 p.m., when the prosecutrix and her son were sitting in the room on the upper store of the shop of the butcher, accused Kamlesh, Arjun Singh and Suresh Kumar went there. They forcibly dragged the prosecutrix out of that room and when they reached the ground floor of the structure, two other persons, appellant, Bal Kishan and Sonu joined them. One more personal named Chuni Lal, who too was tried along with the appellants, also joined them. The prosecutrix was forcibly carried to a near forest. She cried for help. One old lady, living nearby intervened, but she could not get her released. The son of the prosecutrix got so scared that he climbed a truck parked nearby and hid himself in the tool -box. Someone informed the police telephonically. Soon the police reached the forest and over -powered two of the appellants, namely, Kamlesh and Suresh and the six accomplice of the appellants named Chuni Lal (who stands acquitted by the trial Court), when they tried to flee from the spot on seeing the police. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by HC Pawan Sharma, heading the police party that reached the spot. The prosecutrix besides narrating the details about her visit to Baijnath and having gone to the upper storey of the shop of the butcher for night stay and having then been dragged and taken to the forest in the manner as summarized hereinabove, stated that those who committed the rape, were calling each other by the names of Bal Kishan, Arjun, Sonu, Kamlesh etc. Police investigated the matter and filed the case against the six accused persons. The trial Court charged all the six for offences punishable under Sections 452 read with Sections 34, 323 read with Section 34, 376(2)(g) of IPC and Section 3(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short ˜SC, ST Act) because the prosecutrix was alleged to belong to a scheduled caste. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The trial Court then proceeded to try the case and ultimately convicted and sentenced the five accused persons as aforesaid, but acquitted their sixth accomplice. Appellants plea was that they were not involved in the crime and have been implicated just on suspicion. Learned counsel, representing the appellants, argued that there is no evidence on record establishing the identity of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW -1, her son Onkar Chand as PW -3, an old woman, named Gitan Devi, PW -4, who allegedly tried to get the prosecutrix rescued from the accused persons, D.R. Thakur, PW -7, the then Judicial Magistrate Baijnath, who conducted the test identification parade, police Head Constable Pawan Sharma, PW -15, who on the receipt of telephonic information a the police station about the incident went to the spot and over -powered three of the alleged rapists on the spot and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ˜Cr.P.C.) and ASI Chain Lal, PW -16 and Dy. S.P. Pritam Singh, PW -18, who conducted the investigation of the case. The police also examined lady doctor named, Bindu Sood, PW -19, who conducted the medico legal examination of the prosecutrix and Dr. S.K. Sood, PW -2, who medically examined the accused person with a view to ascertaining whether there were any injury marks on their persons and whether they were capable of performing sexual intercourse. All the accused persons took the plea of denial simpliciter and claimed that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated at the behest of the police. The trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of the witnesses i.e. prosecutrix PW -1, her son PW -3 and an old woman PW -4. The trial Court, however, found that the so -called test identification parade conducted by then the Judicial Magistrate, Baijnath PW -7 did not meet the requirements of law and had no evidentiary value. It was noted that the prosecutrix in the witness box had stated that she had identified five boys at the police station on 4.6.2002. It was accepted by her that she had been shown the accused persons by the Police before identification. Primary stand before the High Court taken by the appellant was that there was no evidence so far as his involvement is concerned. He was not apprehended at the spot unlike some other accused persons. The prosecutrix did not know him and had clearly accepted this fact. She only stated that the accused persons were addressing each other by some names and that is how she claimed to know the names of the accused persons. The High Court did not find any substance in this plea and as noted above dismissed the appellants appeal along with other appeals.