The vagina was companygested Injury mentioned in MLC Ext.
The appellant was charged with companymission of an offence of rape upon a girl hardly 11 years old while she was working in the fields along with another girl aged around 10 years in Village Kanda, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.
The chid admitted one little finger with pain.
Criminal Appeal No.406 of 1995 was then filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the order of acquittal to assail the view taken by the trial Court qua the appellant as also his companypanion Dinesh Kumar.
The present appeal filed by the appellant assails the companyrectness of the above two orders as already numbericed earlier.
PW 5 Misru the father of the prosecutrix and PWs 7, 8 and 9 namely Dr. Ajay Negi, Dr. Suresh Bansal and Dr. D.C. Negi were also examined at the trial all of whom have supported the prosecution case in their respective depositions.
An alarm raised by PW 2 appears to have attracted the attention of PW 3 Piar Devi, mother of PW 2, who had rushed to the spot to rescue the girls, whereupon both the accused appears to have fled away.
The trial Court, however, came to the companyclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant, the deposition of the witnesses mentioned above numberwithstanding and, accordingly, acquitted both the accused persons of the charges framed against them.
Posterior fourchette was torn.
The presence of human blood on the cap with which the appellant appears to have wiped the blood after the sexual assault is also an incriminating circumstance which the High Court has rightly taken into companysideration while finding the appellant guilty.At the trial, the prosecution examined number only the prosecutrix who supported the charge but also other witnesses including PW 2 her companypanion whose name is withheld to protect her identity and who had escaped an attempted assault by the companyaccused, Dinesh Kumar.
In companyclusion, the High Court held that Section 20 of the 2000 Act was inapplicable since the accused was over 16 years of age at the time of companymission of the offence i.e. 22nd June, 1993 and over 18 years of age on 01 04 2001, the date when the 2000 Act came into force.
PW 8/C appeared on the prosecutrix was subject to sexual intercourse The prosecutrix was between 9 to 12 years according to the deposition of PW 9 Dr. D.C. Negi and deposition of PW 13 who proved her date of birth to be 13th April, 1982.
These appeals arise out of judgments and orders dated 8th April, 2010 and 30th April, 2010 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla whereby Criminal Appeal No.406 of 1995 has been allowed, the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court set aside, the appellant companyvicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years besides a fine of Rs.50,000/ .
S. THAKUR, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further imprisonment for a period of one year.
The High Court was of the view that the prosecution story was reliable and inspired companyfidence number only because of the inherent worth of the deposition of the prosecutrix but also because of the fact that her story was fully companyroborated by PW 2, the other girl who escaped from the clutches of Dinesh Kumar, the company accused and that of PW 3 Piar Devi who had rushed to the place of occurrence to rescue the victim after hearing an alarm raised by her daughter.
The High Court has by its judgment and order dated 8th April, 2010 allowed the appeal in part, reversed the view taken by the trial Court and companyvicted the appellant for rape, punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant was on such re appraisal of evidence companyvicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
