KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Chamba Division Chamba, H.P. in Sessions Trial No.45 of 2014, dated 30.5.2017, whereby the appellant/accused/convict (for short 'the accused') was convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC") and Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act").

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, as set out by the prosecution, are that on 10.5.2014, there was a dham in the neighbourhood, on the occasion of marriage of Bittu, son of Shri Jakhu. Roop Singh, husband of the complainant-Rekha Devi, gone to prepare dham on that day, while she had gone to the fields early in the morning to graze cattle. Brahmi, mother-in-law of the complainant gone to attend a marriage at Village Kunda. Banti, her paternal mother-in-law (bua) and children stayed at home. At about 9:30 a.m, when the complainant returned with cattle, she was informed by Banti that accused took the victim for a stroll. Since, the accused and the victim were not there in marriage, search was made. Thereafter, the complainant gone to the house, where the marriage was being solemnized and made inquiries from her husband. She was told by her husband that they were also searching for the victim. Thereafter, she gone towards the fields in search of the victim, where she met with Chhabli Devi and Semlata, who were bringing back the victim. Chhabli Devi informed her that the victim was found lying naked in the field of Hoshiaru. The victim disclosed that around 9/9:15 a.m, when she was playing with pebbles alongwith Sakshi and Mukesh in the courtyard of their house, accused came there and started playing with them. Thereafter, the accused allured her friend to sit in his lap and when she started weeping, he left her. The accused told that her mother is his aunt and he is related to her. At that time, the bride had been brought to the water source for prayer. When, the victim gone there, accused followed her, near the water source, the accused forcibly caught hold of the victim from her arm and took her to the field, from the place where the marriage function was going on. The victim raised an alarm, but her cries for help could not be heard by anyone on account of the loud music of DJ and dhol. The victim was taken for some distance by the accused by holding her hand and thereafter, by lifting her in his lap. Thereafter, he forcibly removed the clothes of the victim. The accused by removing his pants, mounted on the victim and committed rape upon her. When she cried for help, the accused fled away from the spot. He was chased by Satish. The victim was found wearing the clothes from the wrong side, she was made to change her clothes by Chhabli Devi. The accused was apprehended by Tarun, Satish, Narinder and was brought to the house, where the function was going on and the accused was given beatings by the persons, who were attending the function. Bhagat Ram, Pradhan, saved the accused from their clutches and reported the matter to the police at Police Station, Tissa, on the basis of which, FIR was registered. The victim, as well as the accused, were medically examined. The victim was found to have undergone sexual intercourse, whereas the accused was opined fit to perform sexual intercourse. The clothes of the victim, which she was wearing at the time of incidence, were recovered and sealed. Site plans of the place of incidence, as well as the field of Hoshiaru, were prepared. Spot was also photographed. During the course of investigation, record pertaining to the age of the victim was also obtained from the Panchayat authorities, as per which, her age was nine years, on the date of offence. After completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as nineteen witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he pleaded not guilty. The accused did not lead any evidence in his defence.