IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 44 of 2021 Reserved on: 23.05.2025 Decided on: 30.05.2025 _____________________________________________________

Lekh Raj alias Dodu …..Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ……Respondent _________________________________________________________

Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes _____________________________________________________

For the appellant: Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr.Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General with Ms.Sunaina, Deputy Advocate General.

Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/

accused/convict (hereinafter referred to as the accused) under Section 374 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2021, passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Solan, District Solan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No.47-S/7 of 2020/2015, whereby he was convicted under Sections 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

‘POCSO Act’) and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for commission of the offence punishable under Section 363, IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment of similar description for a period of one month and for commission of the offence punishable under Section 366, IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment of similar description for a period of two months. Further, he was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 4 of POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment of similar description for a period of one year.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the instant appeal, as per the prosecution story, are that on on 18.07.2015 the complainant/father of the victim (name withheld) lodged a written complaint to the police, stating therein in that his daughter victim 'K', who was aged about 14 years and studying in 10^th standard, was missing from 17.07.2015 and he had made every efforts to search her in the neighbourhood but she could not be traced. He also informed about this incident to his elder brother, who immediately came to his village and then they tried to search for the victim. His wife had informed him that Lekh Raj @ Dodu (accused herein) had been talking with the victim for the last many days and on the aforesaid day also, the accused was seen in the village, hence, he (complainant) suspected that his daughter victim 'K' had been taken away by the accused. On the basis of said complaint, the FIR in question was registered under Sections 363, 366, IPC and Section 18 of POCSO Act. During the course of investigation, sister-in-law of the complainant brought the victim to Durgaghati on 18.07.2015 and thereafter she was taken to police station, where the police recorded her statement, wherein she disclosed that on 17.07.2015, at about 3:00 p.m, the accused had enticed her to accompany him by threatening that in case she did not accompany him, he would harm her family. During the night of 17.07.2015, the accused made her to stay in a house at Kararaghat, where he committed rape upon her and on 18.07.2015, he left her near Galog by stating that she was not of marriageable age. On the basis of such statement, Section 376 of I.P.C and Section 4 of POCSO Act were included in the FIR. The medical examination of the victim was got conducted by the police. The police also recorded the statements of the witnes