SAROTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appellants Saroti Devi and Shakuntla Devi were charged under Sections 363/366/ 366-A IPC while appellant Bal Raj was charged under the aforesaid Sections as also under Section 376 I.P.C. All the three appellants after being tried for the aforesaid offences were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge. Hamirpur, vide judgment dated 25th April, 1995 and sentenced as under Saroti Devi and Shakuntla Devi appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each under Section 366 IPC. In default of payment of fine each one of them has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Further, each of the above appellants has been sentenced under Section 366-A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - each and in default of payment of fine each one of them has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Appellant Balraj has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under section 366 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine he has been ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Appellant Balraj has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 376 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case as put up has been that Smt. Ram Dei prosecutrix was the daughter of PW 5 Joginder Singh. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 31-7-1994 and at that time six months had passed when the mother of the prosecutrix and wife of Joginder Singh had died. On the day of occurrence that is 31-7-1994 Joginder Singh along with his son Ram Lal left his residence for work leaving behind Ram Dei and other minor children in the house. The father and son came back in the evening and found the prosecutrix absent from the house. On inquiry one of the sons of Joginder Singh named Raju informed that accused Saroti Devi and Shakuntla Devi had visited the house and took Ram Dei prosecutrix with them. Prosecution case further has been that when the prosecutrix did not return next morning Joginder Singh searched for her in the house of accused Saroti Devi and Shakuntla Devi aforesaid but they too were also found absent from their house. Thereafter. PW 5. Joginder Singh lodged a report Ex. PG under Section 366 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. It was revealed that Saroti Devi and Shakuntla Devi accused persons had allured the prosecutrix to marry accused Balraj and on 1-8-1994, without her consent accused Balraj performed the marriage with her in the temple at Jogi Panga and thereafter Balraj and the prosecutrix both were sent to Nawan Sehar where the prosecutrix was alleged to have been raped by Balraj accused. It was also revealed that at the time of commission of sexual offence the prosecutrix cried out of pain but her mouth was gagged and on 2-8-1994 clothes were changed by the prosecutrix and Saroti Devi accused and Ram Lal brought them to their shop at Sangian-DaTiala, from where the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of Saroti Devi and was handed over to her father Joginder Singh. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was medically examined. Medical certificate was given to this effect by the Doctor which was Ex. P A on record. The clothes of the prosecutrix were also taken into possession. Accused Balraj was arrested on 6-8-1994. He was also medically examined. His medical certificate is Ex. PE and it was opined that he was capable to perform sexual intercourse. The clothes of the prosecutrix as well as the underwear of the accused were sent for chemical examination. Neither blood not semen was opined to be present on the aforesaid clothes. During investigation the prosecutrix was sent to the Radiologist for opining about her skeletal age. The Radiologist was of the opinion that the age of the prosecutrix was ranging between 14 and 16 years. Some certificate of the President of the Panchayat was also obtained pertaining to the age of the prosecutrix and a copy of the family register was also procured wherein the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded as 11-4-1982. It was also revealed during investigation that the accused had also burnt the clothes of the prosecutrix which she was wearing at the time of occurrence.

(3.) The aforesaid convictions and sentences have been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds.