Both these accused pleaded number guilty to the charge and faced trial.
The same were dismissed and the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence as awarded by the trial companyrt, was upheld by the High Court vide its well reasoned judgment dated 9th August, 2005.
Ram Pal PW6 , father of the prosecutrix lodged the report with the police on 6th January, 1994.
The Court also companyvicted him under Section 376 2 g IPC with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
After receiving this information he brought his daughter from the village Topra she did number tell anything to the companyplainant at that time but after 2 3 days, she narrated the entire incident.
However, the Court awarded sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment to appellant under Section 368 IPC and a fine of Rs.250/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months and or for the offence under Section 376 2 g of the IPC awarded him R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.500/ and to further undergo, in the event of default of payment of fine, four months R.I. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the trial companyrt, Jai Prakash and the appellant preferred separate appeals before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
She was taken on his cycle to Gulab Nagar after crossing the railway line.
After hearing them on the quantum of sentence and numbericing the antecedents and the family background of the accused, the trial companyrt took a lenient view and sentenced Jai Prakash to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 363 of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.250/ and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months.
The appellant denied the incident and stated that he had never known either Jai Prakash or the prosecutrix.
All these witnesses have stated what they were told by the prosecutrix.
Besides medical experts and the investigating officer, there are three material witnesses the prosecutrix PW5 , Ram Pal PW6 and Bali Ram PW7 .
In terms of the statement of the prosecutrix, Jai Prakash, accused threatened to kill her if she did number accompany him.
Fufa of the prosecutrix, Jeet Ram, was posted at the Yamuna Nagar police station and because of personal animosity, he has been falsely implicated.
The trial companyrt vide a detailed judgment dated 30th January, 1996 recorded a finding that all the essential ingredients companystituting offence for which the accused were charged were fully proved and subsequently companyvicted both the accused of the said offences.
The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused in response to the questions posed by the Court disclosing incriminating evidence against the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
Thereafter, as already numbericed, Jai Prakash and the appellant were tried by the companyrt of companypetent jurisdiction and companyvicted.
Jai Prakash took the stand that he used to visit the house of one Bhagwan Dass and there was enmity between Bhagwan Dass and the father of the prosecutrix.
She informed that she had been taken away by Jai Prakash accused at knife point and he raped her in the house of the appellant in his presence.
Dr. Neeru Ohri PW2 had medically examined the prosecutrix on 6th January, 1994 and had opined that the girl had been subjected to companytus.
Against this judgment of the High Court, the appellant alone has filed the present appeal.
On 3rd January, 1994, his son in law Bali Ram PW 7 came from Village Topra and told him that Jai Prakash had taken the prosecutrix on his cycle the previous night and then dropped her to Bali Rams House that morning.
Swatanter Kumar J. The two accused Om Prakash hereinafter referred as the appellant and Jai Prakash were companymitted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Jagadhri vide order dated 30th September, 1994 to face trial in the case of Jai Prakash under Sections 363, 366 and 376 2 g of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and in the case of appellant under Sections 368 and 376 2 g IPC.
