This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 05. 05. 2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat in S. T. No. 9 of 2003, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted & sentenced to undergo rigor ous imprisonment for 10 years under sec tion 376 Indian Panel Code, 1860 (for brevity as I. P. C.) and a fine of Rs. 20, 000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the ac cused/appellant would further undergo one year R. I.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that there was a police barrier adja cent to the house of the informant Jagdish Kumar, the father of the victim. The accused/appellant Mahak Singh was posted in the said barrier. The victim is a minor girl of the informant Jagdish Kumar. The accused/appellant used to tease the victim on one pretext or the oth ers. On 30th May, 2003, in the early morning at about 5:30 a. m. , the victim went to ease herself out in the jungle ad jacent to her house. Constable Mahak Singh, accused/appellant in this case also chased the victim. As soon as the victim started to ease herself, the accused/ap pellant caught hold of her. The accused/appellant threatened the victim of the dire consequences; closed her mouth; put off his clothes; put off the clothes of the vic tim; and thereafter committed forcible sexual intercourse upon the victim. After commission of the offence by the accused/appellant, the victim came to her house and narrated the entire incident to her mother. The father of the victim (inform ant) Jagdish Kumar PW1 had gone in his work. It is also on the record that the informant Jagdish Kumar PW1 usually leaves his house early in the morning at about 5:00 a. m. and return at about 7:00 to 7:30 p. m. in the evening. The inform ant Jagdish Kumar PW1 was a labourer and belonged to scheduled castes cat egory. When the informant came to his house at about 7:00 to 7:30 p. m. , his wife Smt. Saroj Devi narrated the entire incident to him. On the next date, the informant went to police station where he was apprehended by the police. The vil lagers of the informant Jagdish Kumar reached at the police station and thereaf ter, the informant scribed the report in the custody through one Trilok Singh. The re port was lodged at the police station on 31/05/2003 at about 12:05 p. m. and thereafter, the police investigated the matter. The victim was sent for the medi cal examination in the

hospital and her x-ray was conducted on 31/05/2003 in the Civil Hospital. The doctor has opined that the victim was subjected to sexual inter course and her hymen was found torn. In the pathological examination, no sperma tozoa was found on the private part of the victim. The doctor has stated that the said spermatozoa could not be alive after 32 hours of the commission of the offence. The doctor found the age of the victim at about 17 years at the time of the com mission of the offence. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, submitted the chargesheet (Ex. Ka. 9) against the accused/appellant.

3. The accused/appellant was com mitted to the Court of Sessions and the trial court framed charges against the ac cused/appellant. The accused/appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as seven witnesses. Jagdish Kumar PW1 is the inform ant of the case. He is the father of the victim. Smt. Saroj Devi PW2 is the mother of the victim whom the victim narrated the entire incident. PW3 is the vic tim who has narrated the entire story to her mother & father. Sangeet Devi PW4 is the neighbour of the victim. Dr. Shailaja Joshi PW5 is Medical Officer who has examined the victim. Trilok Singh PW6 is the scribe of the report. K. L. Shah PW7 is the Investigating Officer of the case who has investigated the matter and submitted the chargesheet against the accused/appel lant.

5. After recording the entire evidence, the accused/appellant was examined u/s 313 Cr. PC. and he denied the entire evi dence.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document