BUDH RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 2-3-2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan in Sessions Trial No. 21-N/7 of 2007, convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 376 IPC. It has also been directed that whole fine amount, if realized be paid to the prosecutrix.

(2.) THE prosecution case against the appellant is that he had committed rape upon the prosecutrix on 1-6-2007 at about 4 p.m. at Jabiyana, Police Station Pachhad. It is the case of the prosecution that on 1-6-2007 PW-2 prosecutrix had gone to irrigate her tomatoes crop at a distance of 8 to 10 k.m.. from her village Jabiyana. At about 4 p.m. when she was returning to her home, accused met her and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. THE prosecutrix sustained injuries on her back, elbow and knee while resisting the act of the accused. THE prosecutrix raised alarm but due to forest area no one came to her rescue, the prosecutrix later on returned to her home. THE husband of the prosecutrix was away from home and on his return prosecutrix narrated the incident to him. THE prosecutrix ultimately along with husband lodged FIR Ex. PW-2/A. THE prosecutrix was medically examined by PW-1 Dr. Nirmal Vais who issued MLG Ex. PW-1/A. THE MLC of accused is Ex. PY. PW-5 Shyam Lal Thakur Inspector conducted the investigation who prepared site plan Ex. PW-5.B. THE FSL report is Ex. PX. On completion of investigation challan was presented in the Court and the appellant was charged for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. THE prosecution has examined six witnesses and has also produced documentary evidence. THE statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C, he denied the prosecution case, but led no evidence in defence. THE learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed above. Hence, accused has come in appeal.

(3.) PW-2 is the prosecutrix. She has stated that on 1-6-2007 her husband had gone to village Thorniwar. She had gone to irrigate tomatoes crop at a distance of 8 to 10 k.ms. She was returning to her home at 4 p.m. Budh Ram accused committed rape upon her. She resisted and sustained injuries on her back, elbow and on knee. The accused caught hold her by arms. She raised alarm, but due to forest no one came to rescue her. She returned to her home, her husband came to home on the next day in the evening. Thereafter they went to Police Station and lodged report. On 2-6-2007, report could not be lodged as police station is far away from the village. The FIR lodged by her is Ex. PW-2/A. She was medically examined. She handed over her sal war to the police. In the cross-examination she has stated that there was no rain on that day nor after that or before that day. There are fields of other villagers adjoining to their fields where she had gone to irrigate the tomatoes. The accused is her brother-in-law (Devar). She denied that accused and her husband are having dispute over land.