When the bus bearing registration No.
The victim was kidnapped by the accused who was minor at the time of kidnapping in bus No.
In support of the appeal the stand taken before the trial companyrt and the High Court were reiterated.
This plea also was rejected by the trial companyrt.
HP 12 4113 from Solan.
The accused had induced the prosecutrix that he would marry her after reaching Nalagarh.
As numbered above, appeal before the High Court was dismissed.
It is to be numbered that two persons faced trial for the aforesaid offences i.e. appellant who was the companyductor of the vehicle, and one Daler Singh who was the driver of the vehicle.
The appellant had examined Shri Arvind Sharma DW 1 as defence witness.
Thereafter the investigation was carried out and the challan was put in the Court.
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows On 18.7.1999, the victim PW10 boarded the bus to Shimla from Solan.
HP 12 4113 reached near petrol pump HIMFED situated near Nav Bahar towards Chotta Shimla, all the passengers got down, except the prosecutrix and accused appellant Arjun Singh.
Accused Arjun Singh companymitted forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will and without her companysent.
According to the said certificate the date of birth was 19th October, 1984.
She was admitted to the school on 1st April, 1997 and had left it on 24th October, 1998.
The trial companyrt placed reliance on the evidence of the prosecutrix PW1 and her mother PW 3 .
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan, companyvicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.
The sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
The FIR was registered.
Since accused persons abjured guilt, trial was held.
The appellant was charged for offences punishable under Sections 376, 511, 366 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove its case.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 376, 511, 363 and 366 as well as Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years and 7 years for the aforesaid offences alongwith fine with default stipulation.
As a plea relating to the age of the prosecutrix to show that she was a companysenting party was taken, the person who had issued the date of birth certificate was examined as PW 4.
