SANJEEV AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS -convicts Sanjeev alias Sanju and Rajender Singh, hereinafter referred to as the accused, have assailed the judgment dated 29.3.2014/31.3.2014, passed by Sessions Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 63 -ST/7 of 2013, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sanjeev alias Sanju & another, whereby they stand convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) IT is the case of prosecution that on 6.12.2012, prosecutrix, a student of 10th Class, was subjected to sexual assault by both the accused persons. The place of incident being an open jungle, her brother Ashok Kumar (PW -2) happened to reach the spot and accused fled away from the spot. Her brother took the prosecutrix home, where the incident was narrated to their mother Smt. Reeta Devi (PW -12). Complaint (Ex. PW -1/A) was lodged, on the basis of which FIR No. 112 dated 6.12.2012 (Ex. PW -15/A), for commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of Sections 376(2)/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, stood registered at Police Station, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Priyanka (PW -6), who issued MLC (Ex. PW -6/A). SI Daulat Ram (PW -15), who conducted the investigation, on the basis of disclosure statement made by the accused, collected incriminating material, including one condom and a handkerchief, so used in the crime, which were also got scientifically analyzed and report of the DNA profiling (Ex. PW -15/M) taken on record. Record pertaining to the age of the prosecutrix was taken on record, which reveals that she was born on 10.5.1995. With the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

(3.) IN order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and statements of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, in which they took defence of innocence and false implication.