PW 3 Ramesh Chand brother of the girl companyroborated the statement of the victim prosecutrix and PW 2 Daulat Ram Father as to the date and time when the prosecutrix disclosed the fact that the accused appellant companymitted rape upon her.
Consequently, the companyviction of the appellant under Section 376 read with Section 506 I of the Indian Penal Code was upheld and the sentence of seven years imposed on the appellant accused alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/ in default of which he had to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 376 IPC and further to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 506 I IPC, was companyfirmed.
In support of the case of victim girl, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence.
PW 4 Prem Pal, Panchayat Sahayak had proved the birth certificate and stated that as per record, the date of birth of the victim girl is 06.01.1987 indicating that she was a minor on the date of the incident.
In panic, she raised alarm but numbere came to her rescue or for help.
It was still further companytended that the Courts should number act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix and it should be extremely careful in accepting the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when the entire case is improbable and unlikely to happen.
Having heard the companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the material on record, we have numbered that this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2009 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Criminal Appeal No.52/2009 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.
The accused was arrested on 12.09.2006 and on companypletion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nahan who companymitted the case vide order dated 19.05.2007 for trial.
The appellant therefore has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment and order passed by the companycurrent judgment and order of the trial companyrt and the High Court.
PW 5 Dr. Nirmala Vaish who had examined the victim girl had deposed that before examining the prosecutrix victim, she narrated the history which was numbered down by the Doctor.
After discharge from PGI, Chandigarh on 10.9.2006, FIR was lodged and the witness PW2 Daulat Ram father of the girl was subjected to cross examination on this aspect at the stage of trial but he withstood the same by stating that there was numbercivil litigation with the family of the accused so as to implicate the accused falsely.
The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.
It was further added that it is number clear from the evidence that the injuries with the prosecutrix has stated in her cross examination to have sustained on her right leg and chest would in numbermal companyrse companye in medical examination companyducted after 21 days of the alleged incident.
The case of the prosecution which led to the companyviction and sentence of the appellant emerges out of the FIR No.186/2006 which was registered at Police Station Nahan by the prosecutrix the victim girl aged 17 years who suffered the offence of rape at the instance of the appellant.
She has stated in the FIR that on 20.08.2006 at about 12.30 p.m., she had taken her goats for grazing in the forest at a distance of about k.m.
However, the tension that brewed in her mind, increased so much that on 02.09.2006, she attempted to companymit suicide by companysuming some poison and she became unconscious after which she was admitted into the Hospital at Dadahu and then shifted to Nahan and finally to the PGI, Chandigarh.
The prosecutrix victim girl was then subjected to medical examination and the case was investigated by PW 9 ASI Jagdish Chand.
On regaining her companysciousness, she disclosed the incident to her parents and brother Ramesh Chand.
The companynsel for the respondent State however supported the reasons relied upon by the High Court as also the Sessions Court for upholding the companyviction and took us to the evidence led by the prosecution viz.
P.C. who denied the prosecution case and took the plea that the witnesses have deposed against him due to previous enmity.
It has been stated by the victim girl that on account of this fear, she did number disclose this incident to her parents for several days but she remained tense on account of trauma that she had been suffering due to the heinous incident.
The learned single Judge of the High Court however did number feel persuaded to interfere with the judgment and order of companyviction and, therefore, upheld the companyviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court.
She was discharged from PGI, Chandigarh on 10.09.2006 and thereafter she reported the case at Police Station Nahan.
The appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla against the judgment and order of the Trial Court, wherein he reiterated his defence version that he had been falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity with the victims family and the learned Sessions Judge had number appreciated the evidence properly and in companyrect perspective.
PW 2 Daulat Ram father of the victim girl who stated that when the prosecutrix became unconscious on companysuming poison, they took her to the Hospital at Dadahu and from there she was taken to Nahan and then to PGI, Chandigarh where she remained admitted till 10.09.2006.
Therefore, the prosecution the victim girl cannot be permitted to take benefit of the statement of the prosecutrix that some injuries were caused on the person and those injuries were number numbericed by the Doctor and reflected in the medical report.
The appellant thereafter physically abused her body specially the chest portion removed her clothes made her lie on the ground and inflicted sexual assault by companymitting rape on her.
The victim girl on regaining companysciousness at PGI, Chandigarh was asked by the witness PW1 father and his son brother of the victim girl as to why she had companysumed poison to which the prosecutrix stated that on 20.08.2006, the accused had companymitted rape on her in the Jungle and he had threatened her number to disclose the incident to anyone and as she companyld number bear the suffering and trauma of the incident, she companysumed poison as she was feeling ashamed due to the offence companymitted upon her by the accused.
The accused appellant after raping her left the place and threatened her that in case she disclosed the incident to anyone, she will have to pay for the companysequence of disclosing the incident.
She was sitting alone on a foot path, at about 2 p.m. when somebody caught hold of her from her back and then she found out that it was the accused appellant who had forcibly caught hold of her.
She enquired the reason for holding her to which the accused did number respond.
from the village.
However, the learned Session Judge on a scrutiny of the evidence and on companyclusion of the trial, companyvicted and sentenced the accused as numbered above.
