RAJINDER ALIAS RAJU Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the accused Appellant (hereafter referred to as 'the accused') against the judgment dated 23.7.2002, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, convicting the accused under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of nine months under Section 376 IPC. No sentence, however, has been awarded to the accused under Section 366 IPC.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused a registered contractor with IPH, on 16.1.1996, went to the house of the prosecutrix (PW-1) in village Kothi, as he was laying GI pipes near her house. At that time, the prosecutrix was having pain in her throat. The accused informed Sheela Devi (PW-5), the mother of the prosecutrix, that a son of his aunt was a doctor at Ghumarwin and he could get the prosecutrix checked up by him. After giving assurance to the mother of the prosecutrix, the accused took the prosecutrix on his scooter to Ghumarwin but instead, of getting her checked up from any doctor, he took her to Jablu, saying that he had his shops at Jablu and was to recover the rent thereof. From Jablu, the accused took the prosecutrix to Barthin where sweets and peanuts were purchased by him and given to the prosecutrix and disclosed that he would take the prosecutrix to his house as the night had already fallen. Thereafter, the accused took the prosecutrix on his scooter towards village Dohak. On the way near a Pully, he stopped, gagged the mouth of the prosecutrix and took her to a lonely place, where he committed rape on her. After commission of the rape, the accused fled away leaving Pattu, torch and Mungfali etc. on the spot. The helpless prosecutrix, who was feeling pain remained on the spot for sometime. Noticing some light in a far off house, she went to the said house and informed the inmates of the house about the occurrence. She stayed there for the night and in the morning, Up Pradhan and villagers gathered there and statement Ex. PW-l/A of the prosecutrix about the occurrence was recorded by Roop Singh (PW-4). The occurrence was reported by the prosecutrix to the police vide her statement Ex. PW-l/B on the basis of which, formal FIR Ex.PW-12/A was recorded at Police Station, Ghumarwin. During investigation, torch Ex. P-l, Pattu Ex. P-2, peanuts Ex. P-3 left at the place of occurrence were produced by the prosecutrix to the police and were taken in possession vide memo Ex. PW-l/C. While in custody, the accused made a disclosure statement Ex. PW-10/B regarding purchase of Gachak and pea nuts and the consequential recovery memo is Ex. PW-4/A. On production by the accused, his underwear was also taken into possession by the investigating officer vide memo Ex. PW-10/A. Prosecutrix and the accused were got medically examined. MLC regarding medical examination of the prosecutrix conducted by medical officer Seweta Mehta (PW-13) is Ex. PW-13/A and as per the opinion therein, the possibility of commission of rape on the prosecutrix could not be ruled out and that the sexual intercourse was committed with her within 48 hours of her medical examination. The accused was medically examined by medical officer S.C. Kaushik (PW-7) and the MLC issued by him is Ex. PW-7/A whereby it has been opined that the accused was found fit to commit sexual intercourse. The wearing apparels of the prosecutrix along with the vaginal slides and underwear of the accused were sent for chemical analysis and the report about such analysis is Ex. PW-12/L. It was also found during the course of investigation that the prosecutrix belongs to a scheduled caste. On the basis of the material collected by the investigating agency, the officer in charge, Police Station, Ghumarwin, submitted a charge sheet against the accused under Sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code and Section 3(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(3.) The accused was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, on a charge under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and Section 3(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.