DESH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal is filed against the judgment and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge Court No. 1 Kangra at Dharamshala in Sessions Trial No. 12 -N of 2011 titled State v. Desh Raj decided on dated 14.01.2013.

(2.) IT is alleged that on dated 27.12.2010 at about 5.30 PM at village Har Gatla, G.P. Thehar Tehsil and Police Station Nurpur District Kangra H.P. accused wrongfully restrained the prosecutrix from proceeding further on her way to her house while she was coming back after taking grass. It is alleged by prosecution that on same date time and place accused criminally assaulted prosecutrix by doing obscene act intending to outrage her modesty and it is further alleged by prosecution that on same date time and place accused forcibly committed rape upon prosecutrix without her consent by tying her hand with wild string and thereafter burnt the wild string in order to cause disappearance of the evidence with intention of screening himself from legal punishment. It is alleged by prosecution that prosecutrix cried and on hearing the cries of prosecutrix Mehar Chand came towards the spot and on seeing Mehar Chand accused put on his pent and fled away from the place of incident. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter Mehar Chand helped the prosecutrix in lifting the grass on her head and he also came to house of prosecutrix. It is alleged by prosecution that prosecutrix narrated the entire incident to her mother. It is alleged by prosecution that father of prosecutrix was at Banglore in connection with his service and FIR could not be lodged in the evening. It is alleged by prosecution that on dated 28.12.2010 FIR Ext. PW11/A was lodged. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter prosecutrix was brought to Civil Hospital and was medically examined and X -ray was conducted and thereafter PW11 ASI Ram Nath visited the spot along with prosecutrix and prepared spot map Ext. PW11/B and I.O. also recorded statements of prosecution witnesses. It is alleged by prosecution that prosecutrix was also medically examined and MLC Ext. PW11/E obtained after moving application Ext. PW11/D. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter medical officer took into possession clothes of prosecutrix in parcels Ext. P3 to Ext. P7 and sealed them in sealed parcel and thereafter handed over the same to I.O. It is also alleged by prosecution that thereafter I.O. obtained school certificate of prosecutrix Ext. PW6/A from PW6 Anchla Devi Incharge Government Primary School Haar Gatla and also obtained opinion of doctor Ext. PW1/B as well as the opinion of gynecologist. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW1 Dr. Sushma medically examined the prosecutrix and issued MLC Ext. PW1/A and gave her opinion Ext. PW1/B. It is alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW4 Dr. Amod Kumar Singh Gynecologist examined the prosecutrix and submitted report Ext. PW4/A and it is further alleged by prosecution that on dated 12.1.2011 MHC Harnam Singh handed over five parcels along with docket to PW10 HC Harbans Singh who was HHC in P.S. Nurpur for depositing these parcels in RFSL Dharamshala who after depositing the same handed over the receipt to MHC PW8 Harnam Singh. It is further alleged by prosecution that PW12 Dr. Raman Sharma gave radiological age of prosecutrix and as per his opinion Ext. PW12/B the age of prosecutrix was between 14 to 16 years. It is also alleged by prosecution that accused was also medically examined and found that accused was capable of performing sexual intercourse. It is further alleged by prosecution that thereafter PW5 Ajay Kumar working in SFSL Dharamshala conducted biological and serological analysis of five sealed parcels received in RFSL Dharamshala on dated 3.1.2001 through HHC Harnam Singh and gave his report Ext. PX.

(3.) PROSECUTION examined as many as twelve witnesses in support of its case and accused persons examined Rattan Chand as defence witness: - -