Rajiv Sharma, J.@mdashThis appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 14.8.2014 rendered by the Special Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur in Sessions Trial No. 26 of 2013 whereby the appellant-accused (hereinafter referred to as the "accused" for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences punishable under sections 363 and 376, IPC and section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, has been convicted and sentenced as under:
a) For offence under section 363, IPC, he is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default, he is to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months;
b) For offence punishable under section 376, IPC, he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months; and
c) For offence punishable under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, he is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that the prosecutrix was student of 9th class of local Government School. On 14.5.2013, she did not reach home from the school at usual time. Her parents started making search and during this process, came across Sahil son of their neighbour, who told that he had seen the victim going with one non-tribal boy towards upper side. The parents of victim straightway went to the house of landlady Prem Bhagti. Accused was standing there. On inquiry, he feigned ignorance about the victim. However, parents of the victim found her school bag lying in the verandah of the house. They loudly called their daughter. She came out of the room of the accused. Accused fled away towards forest side. FIR was registered. Victim as well as accused were got medically examined at different hospitals. Samples prepared by the medical officers at the time of examination including FTA cards were got examined in F.S.L. Junga. The police investigated the case and the challan was put up in the Court after completing all the codal formalities.
2. Prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses to prove its case against the accused. Statement of accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. was recorded. He has admitted that he was residing as a farm labourer in the village. The prosecutrix was studying in 9th Class in a local school. He has also admitted that parents of the victim had come to him and inquired about her, on which he told that she has gone towards upper side. He has also stated that victim wanted to marry him. He was coming to shop when she met him on the way and asked him to tell another girl to come to school early in the morning as cleaning was to be done in the school. He returned to his home from the shop. Victim was standing near his house. She came to his room and told that she wanted to marry him otherwise she would commit suicide by taking poison. Thereafter, he committed that act. Learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal.
3. Mr. Satyen Vaidya, learned Senior Advocate, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against'' the accused.
4. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the judgment passed by the trial Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record meticulously.
6. PW-1 Dandup Dorje has deposed that the prosecutrix was student of 9th Class in Government High School, Thangi. On 14.5.2013, she did not return home from the school at normal time. He went in search of her and asked the school girls about his daughter and they told that prosecutrix had already come. He went towards Rest House, Thangi. One old lady, whose house was adjoining to the Rest House, advised him to make search of his daughter. His wife also went in search of his daughter. When he was coming back towards his house, Bhag Chand was in his house. He was in the verandah. PW-1 told him that his daughter has not come from the school. He told that his son Sahil has seen the prosecutrix going with one non-tribal boy near Rest House, Thangi. He then went in search of his daughter. They straightway went to the house of Prem Bhagti. When he reached the house of Prem Bhagti, he saw accused in the verandah. He asked the accused whether he has seen his daughter. He told that his daughter has gone towards upper side. He went to the house of Raj Kapoor and asked about his daughter. She told that prosecutrix has not come. He came back. In the meanwhile, his wife also came. They went with accused to his verandah. They saw a school bag lying in the verandah. They asked the accused about their daughter. His wife slapped the accused. In the process, his daughter came out of the room of accused. He asked his wife to ask his daughter what has happened with her. His wife asked his daughter and told him that it was not a case where accused should be let off and the matter should be reported to the police. He filed complaint Ex.PW-1/A. Police came over the spot. Accused and prosecutrix were taken for medical examination.
7. PW-2 Vidya Bhagti has corroborated the statement of PW-1 Dandup Dorje. According to her, the prosecutrix was 13 years and few months old on 14.5.2013.
8. PW-3 Sujata Kumari has deposed that on 14.5.2013 in the evening, parents of prosecutrix called her telephonic ally and informed that their daughter was missing. She was recovered from the room of Prem Bhagati. They had called the police. She went to the spot. I.O. lifted one mattress and one bed sheet from the room where the prosecutrix was raped. The same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-3/A.
9. PW-4 prosecutrix (name withheld) has deposed that she was studying in Government High School, Thangi in 9th Class. She was 14 years old at that time. On 14.5.2013, after school, she was returning to her house with her friends. Accused was present near Rest House, Thangi. He called her and she went near that road. Accused told that she was called by her grandmother Prem Bhagti. She thought that she must have been called by her grandmother. She went to the house of Prem Bhagti. Accused took her to the room. There was none else in the room. He bolted the door from inside and put her on the bed. Accused men committed rape with her. He put her on the mattress on the floor and again committed rape with her. He committed rape with her 5-6 times. He kept her there for one hour. She heard the voice of her parents at about 5.30 p.m. and came out of the room. Police also came there. She was also taken for medical examination.
10. PW-5 Prem Bhagti has deposed that she had given a separate room to the accused. On 14.5.2013, she had come to Reckong Peo to take medicines. She reached her house at about 9.30 p.m. Her house was locked. Pradhan of Panchayat visited her house with police. Police lifted one mattress and one bed sheet from the room of accused. These articles were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-3/A.
11. PW-6 Dr. Manjeet Kumar has examined the accused and issued MLC Ex.PW-6/A.
12. PW-7 Rajwansh Negi has produced the birth certificate of prosecutrix Ex.PW-7/A. It was correct as per the original record. The prosecutrix was admitted in the school on 6.4.2013 and her date of birth was 5.1.2000.
13. PW-8 Chander Kumar has proved the Pariwar register Ex.PW-8/A and birth certificate Ex.PW-8/B.
14. PW-16 Sahil though minor was examined on oath. According to him, he was student of 8th class of Government High School, Thangi. Prosecutrix also used to study in his school. On 14.5.2013, he and prosecutrix were returning to their houses. Prosecutrix was ahead of him. He saw her talking to accused. He went to his house whereas accused and prosecutrix were talking to each other.
15. PW-21 ASI Raj Kumar has deposed that videography of the building was done. Photographs were also taken. The mattress was also taken into possession. Site plan of the room Ex.PW-21/C was prepared.
16. PW-22 Dr. Anupam Gupta has examined the prosecutrix. The age of prosecutrix was 13 years. She has proved MLC Ex.PW-22/A. According to her, sexual activity had occurred with the patient.
17. PW-23 Dula Ram has deposed that the accused was taken to R.H. reckong Peo on 31.5.2013 for taking blood sample for the purpose of DNA. The victim was also called on 1.6.2013 and taken to PHC Mooran for taking blood sample for DNA.
18. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of statements of PW-1 Dandup Dorje, PW-2 Vidya Bhagti and PW-4 prosecutrix against the accused. The prosecutrix had gone to school on 14.5.2013. Accused accosted her. He took her to his room rented to him by PW-5 Prem Bhagti. Accused had told her that she was called by her grandmother. She went with the accused. Accused raped her. PW-1 Dandup Dorje and PW-2 Vidya Bhagti went in search of her. The school bag was found lying in the verandah of the room of accused. The incident was narrated by the prosecutrix to her mother. Police was informed. Police came to the spot. Case property was taken into possession. Accused was also medically examined. It has come in the statement of PW-22 Dr. Anupam Gupta that sexual activity had occurred with the prosecutrix. Blood samples of the accused and prosecutrix were also taken for DNA examination vide Ex.PW-23/C and Ex.PW-23/D. According to Ex.PX, one DNA profile completely matched with the DNA profile of the prosecutrix while the other DNA profile completely matched with the DNA profile of the accused. It is also evident from the report of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga Ex.PA that human semen and human blood was detected on Ex.-1 (Salwar of prosecutrix), human semen was detected on Ex.-2 (pubic hair of prosecutrix) and blood and human semen was detected on Ex.-3 (vaginal slides of prosecutrix). Human semen was detected on Ex.-6a (trouser of accused). The prosecutrix at the time of incident on 14.5.2013 was a minor.
19. Accordingly, there is no occasion for us to interfere with the well reasoned judgment dated 14.8.2014. The trial court, after correct appreciation of the prosecution evidence, has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused for the offences charged against him. Consequently, in view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
