Mohan Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Sanjay Karol, J.—Appellant Mohan Lal has since expired and the appeal is being pursued by his legal heirs. However, hereinafter, the original appellant is being referred to as the accused.

Accused Mohan Lal has assailed the judgment dated 12.8.2008/13.8.2008, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Case No. 4-B/08(RBT No. 11-B/08), titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mohan Lal, whereby he stands convicted of the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- (on realization Rs. 10,000/- to be paid to the prosecutrix) and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.

As per the case set up by the prosecution, accused subjected the prosecutrix, who was a divorcee, to rape, as a result of which she became pregnant. Four months after the alleged act, prosecutrix disclosed the factum of rape to her father. Whereafter, complaint was got prepared and filed before the police, on the basis of which FIR No. 129/07, dated 8.10.2007 (Ex. PW-9/A), under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station, Baijnath. SI Tambeshwar (PW-9), who was posted as SHO, of the Police Station, conducted the investigation. Initially prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Dinesh Dutt Sharma (PW-8) and thereafter by Dr. Sudesh Kaul (PW-10), who issued MLC (Ex. PW-5/B). Accused was also got medically examined from Dr. Jyotinder Kaul (PW-7), who issued MLC (Ex. PW-7/B). Statements of the relevant witnesses were also recorded. With the completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial.

Accused was charged for having committed an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and statement of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded, in which he pleaded innocence and false implication. He has also taken a defence of false implication on the instance of contractors Sukh Ram and Hari Singh.

Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted the accused of an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused.

We have heard Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, learned Additional Advocate General, on behalf of the State as also Mr. V.S. Rathore, Advocate, on behalf of the accused. We have also minutely examined the testimonies of the witnesses and other documentary evidence so placed on record by the prosecution. Having done so, we are of the considered view that no case for interference is made out at all. We find that the judgment rendered by the trial Court is based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record. There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice.

The fact that the prosecutrix (PW-5) was married and divorced is not in dispute. The fact that on 8.10.2007, the date of registration of the FIR, prosecutrix was pregnant, stands duly proved on record through the testimonies of Dr. Tilak Bhagra (PW-1), who prepared report (Ex. PW-1/B), as also Dr. Sudesh Kaul (PW-10), who prepared the MLC.

The fact that prosecutrix is illiterate and a rustic villager is also not in dispute, which fact, in any event, stands established through the unrebutted testimony of the prosecutrix as also her father Kalam Singh (PW-3).

Accused has taken a defence, in his statement recorded under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that he has been falsely implicated on the asking of contractors Sukh Ram and Hari Singh. Now, who are these persons has not come on record nor explained by him.

Be that as it may, independently, after perusing the testimonies of prosecutrix, her father as also her aunt Sunpati (PW-2), we are of the considered view, that the trial Court has completely and correctly appreciated the material on record, while holding the accused guilty of the charged offence.

Unrebuttedly, prosecutrix has deposed that the accused used to tell her that he would get her married to someone else. The fact that accused knew the prosecutrix and had been promising her of settlement in life is thus established on record. Further, testimony of the prosecutrix that on the pretext of fetching fuel wood, accused used to take her to the jungle and subject her to rape, to our mind, is fully inspiring in confidence. We do not find her version, in any manner, to have been shattered in her cross-examination.

We are dealing with a case where parties, who are illiterate and rustic villagers, reside in the interior parts of Himachal Pradesh. Prosecutrix does state that she used to go to the jungle alone. Hence, none would witness the incident. Her version that she did not reveal about the incident to anyone is on account of the promises made by the accused. On the assurance of settling her in life, accused sexually assaulted the prosecutrix, by abusing the faith and confidence which she had reposed in him.

When we peruse testimony of father of the prosecutrix, we find version of the prosecutrix to have been further corroborated. In fact, this witness unrebuttedly states that on the asking of the accused he had agreed to transfer 3 kanals of land for getting his daughter married. What further emerges from his testimony is the fact that prosecutrix was not mentally fit. Testimony of Sunpati (PW-2), aunt of the prosecutrix, fully corroborates the testimony of prosecutrix.

We find that father of the prosecutrix, who himself is an illiterate person, had to seek legal assistance. Whereafter only, he lodged the complaint (Ex. PW-5/A), which was prepared by Shri Prithvi Raj Chauhan (PW-6), an Advocate. The witness testifies that contents of the application were read over and explained to the prosecutrix and only thereafter she thumb marked the same.

No other point is urged.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the trial Court. The Court has fully appreciated the evidence placed on record by the parties. There is no illegality, irregularity, perversity in correct and/or in complete appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.