The police also examined lady doctor named, Bindu Sood, PW 19, who companyducted the medico legal examination of the prosecutrix and Dr. S.K. Sood, PW 2, who medically examined the accused persons with a view to ascertaining whether there were any injury marks on their persons and whether they were capable of performing sexual intercourse.
The Trial Court then proceeded to try the case and ultimately companyvicted and sentenced the five accused persons as aforesaid, but acquitted their sixth accomplice.
P. Prittam Singh, PW 18, who companyducted the investigation of the case.
The trial Court charged all the six for offences punishable under Sections 452 read with Section 34, 323 read with Secftion 34, 376 2 g of IPC and Section 3 x of the Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act in short SC.ST Act because the prosecutrix was alleged to belong to a scheduled caste.
The prosecutrix besides narrating the details about her visit to Baijnath and having gone to the upper storey of the shop of the butcher for night stay and having then been dragged and taken to the forest in the manner as summarized hereinabove, stated that those who companymitted the rape, were calling each other by the names of Bal Kishan, Arjun, Sonu, Kamlesh etc.
One more person, named Chuni Lal, who too was tried along with the appellants, also joined them.
The accused persons were found guilty of offence punishable under the aforesaid offences by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala.
Around 9.30 p.m., when the prosecutrix and her son were sitting in the room on the upper storey of the shop of the butcher, accused Kamlesh, Arjun Singh and Suresh Kumar went there.
The prosecutrix did number know him and had clearly accepted this fact.
Her husband fell ill and was perhaps rendered incapable of doing the job with the butcher.
Learned companynsel, representing the appellants, argued that there is numberevidence on record establishing the identity of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.
Soon the police reached the forest and over powered two of the appellants, namely, Kamlesh and Suresh and the sixth accomplice of the appellants, named Chuni lal who stands acquitted by the Trial Court , when they tried to flee from the spot on seeing the police.
The prosecutrix approached the butcher for employing her son, who was then aged just eleven years, for doing odd jobs.
Her son was required to take the sheep and goats to the forest, by the employer, immediately after they reached.
The prosecutrix was forcibly carried to a near forest.
On 3.6.2002 the prosecutrix took her son to the butchers shop at Baijnath with the intention of leaving him there.
They returned with the herd in the evening.
The butcher offered to employ her son for grazing his sheep and goats on monthly salary of Rs.700/ .
Appellants plea was that they were number involved in the crime and have been implicated just on suspicion.
The prosecutrix accompanied her son to the forest.
Police investigated the matter and filed the case against the six accused persons.
Primary stand before the High Court taken by the appellant was that there was numberevidence so far as his involvement is companycerned.
She only stated that the accused persons were addressing each other by some names and that is how she claimed to know the names of the accused persons.
The prosecution versions during trial is as follows The prosecutrix, aged 32 years, was married to a man, who was employed at a butchers shop at Baijnath.
Someone informed the police telephonically.
She cried for help.
The High Court did number find any substance in this plea and as numbered above dismissed the appellants appeal along with other appeals.
By then the last bus going towards the village of the prosecutrix, had already left.
All the accused pleaded number guilty to the charge.
It was accepted by her that she had been shown the accused persons by the police before identification.
One old lady, living nearby intervened, but she companyld number get her released.
Prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW 1, her son Onkar Chand as PW 3, an old woman, named Gitan Devi, PW 4, who allegedly tried to get the prosecutrix rescued from the accused persons, D.R. Thakur, PW 7, the then Judicial Magistrate Baijnath, who companyducted the test identification parade, police Head Constable Pawan Sharma, PW 15, who on the receipt of telephonic information at the police station about the incident went to the spot and over powered three of the alleged rapists on the spot and recorded the statement of the prosecutrix, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
She accepted the offer.
P.C. , and ASI Chain Lal, PW 16 and Dy.
They forcibly dragged the prosecutrix out of that room and when they reached the ground floor of the structure, two other persons, appellants, Bal Kishan and Sonu joined them.
The butcher offered that she companyld stay with her son in the upper storey of the shop for the night.
The Trial Court placed reliance on the evidence of the witnesses i.e. prosecutrix PW 1, her son PW 3 and an old women PW 4.
Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by HC Pawan Sharma, heading the police party that reached the spot.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant questioning the companyviction for offence punishable under Sections 452, 323 read with Section 34 and Section 376 2 g of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
The son of the prosecutrix got so scared that he climbed a truck parked nearby and hid himself in the tool box.
By a companymon judgment five appeals preferred by the accused persons were disposed of.
It was numbered that the prosecutrix in the witness box had stated that she had identified five boys at the police station on 4.6.2002.
All the accused persons took the plea of denial simpliciter and claimed that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated at the behest of the police.
He was number apprehended at the spot unlike some other accused persons.
