Back
2000 Supreme(HP) 293
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
K.C.SOOD
MANI RAM - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 95 of 2000 and 185 of 2000
Decided On : 11/10/2000
In Cri. Appeal No. 185 of 2000 :Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate, for the Appellants; Mr. R.M. Bisht, Assistant Advocate General, for the Respondent. In Cri. Appeal No. 95 of 2000:Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. R.M. Bisht, Asstt. Advocate General, for the Respondent.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Rape - Sections 342, 376 - The judgment discusses the age of the victim, medical evidence, and the consent of the victim in relation to the sexual activity. The court concludes that the accused indulged in sexual activity with the victim with her consent, but as she was under sixteen years of age, the accused are convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also acquits one of the accused of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the victim, a schoolgirl, was subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused. The victim spent the night in the accused's room and did not disclose the incident to her mother until later. The accused claimed that the sexual activity was consensual and that the victim was not under sixteen years of age at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim was under sixteen years of age at the time of the incident and that the accused indulged in sexual activity with her with her consent. The court acquitted one of the accused of the charges but convicted the others under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The key issues were whether the victim was under sixteen years of age, whether the sexual activity was consensual, and whether there was wrongful confinement of the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the victim, medical reports, and the conduct of the victim to determine that the accused indulged in sexual activity with the victim with her consent. The court also considered the age of the victim to establish the criminal liability of the accused.
Final Decision: The court acquitted one of the accused of the charges and convicted the others under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed on the accused was modified and reduced based on the age and consent of the victim.
Kuidip Chand Sood, J.—Both these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment as they arise out of the common judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushehr in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1998 decided on 29.2.2000,
2. In Cr. Appeal No, 185 of 2000, Appellants Mani Ram and Mela Ram (Accused hereinafter) were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 342 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1,000 each under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. In case of default in the payment of fine (under Section 376 of the Code) both Mani Ram and Mela Ram are to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. In Cr. Appeal No. 95 of 2000, Appellant Ramila was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 376 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 342 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. In case of default in the payment of fine, she is to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
3. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.
4. Prosecution ease, in brief, was that Reena Kumari (PW 5) daughter of Roop Singh, resident of village Khanotu (hereinafter referred to as Victim) was studying in class VIII in Government High School, Taklech in the year 1997. Accused Mela Ram, Mani Ram and Ramila of village Darkali were also studying in the same school. Mela Ram was residing in the hostel whereas, Mani Ram and Ramila were living in separate hired accommodation at Taklech at the relevant time. The victim used to come daily from her village Khanotu to attend the school.
5. During August, 1997, there were tournaments in the School. On 29.8.1997, accused and victim attended the School as usual. When the School closed at 4 Oclock in the evening, accused Ramila persuaded the victim to come with her. The victim accompanied Ramila and spent some time in her room. Ramila, then persuaded victim to accompany her to the residential quarter of Mani Ram accused. Both accused Mani Ram and Mela Ram were present when the victim and Ramila visited the room of Mani Ram. At about 6.00 p.m. Ramia left the place. Victim also wanted to return back with her. She was asked by Ramila to remain there and promised to return back within five minutes. The room was bolted from inside after Ramila left the place.
6. It is the further case of the prosecution that Ramila did not turn up though the victim kept on waiting for her. Meals were prepared by Mani Ram and part took by accused Mani Ram, Mela Ram and the victim. All three of them went to sleep at 10.00 p.m. During the night, victim was subjected to forcible sexual inter-course firstly by Mani Ram and then by Mela Ram. One Jiwani Devi, who used to live in the adjacent room, gave calls during the night as to what was happening and asked the victim to come out of the room. The victim, however, was told that if she raised any alarm, she would only face disgrace and loss of reputation.
7. Ramila returned back at about 6.00 in the next morning. Both Mani Ram and Mela Ram left the room. Victim narrated the incident to Ramila who advised her to keep quiet about the incident otherwise she may have to face disgrace. Victim came to School from the room of Mani Ram and attended her classes as usual. She narrated the incident to her friend Lata. After attending the school, she returned back to her home, washed her clothes, but did not disclose the incident to her mother out of fear. According to the prosecution case, she told her mother that she spent the previous night in the house of her Masi (mothers sister) in village Taklech. Her mother after few days enquired from her sister, who told her that she (the victim)
