Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 570 (HP)

GUMAN SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-06-18

SURJIT SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral):-Revision petitioner has challenged his conviction for offences, under Sections 452, 354, 323 and 506 IPC, as recorded by the trial Court, vide judgment dated 4.4.2001 and affirmed by the Sessions Court, in appeal, vide judgment dated 20.12.2002. 2. Petitioner was sent up for trial for the aforesaid offences by the police, with the allegations that on the night intervening 26th and 27th July, 1999, around 1 A.M., he went to the house of the prosecutrix, examined as PW-2, when she was asleep. Petitioner allegedly caught hold of her by her arm and woke her up. He asked her to allow him to have sexual intercourse with her. When the prosecutrix refused, the petitioner took out a sword, which he had hidden under the cot of the prosecutrix, and threatened that he would kill her. Prosecutrix tried to snatch the sword from the petitioner and in that process she sustained an injury on one of the fingers of her left hand. Prosecutrix raised alarm, on hearing which, her father-in-law PW-3 Mohi Ram and PW-7 Guman Singh reached the spot. Petitioner then took to heels. Matter was reported to the police, the very next day. Police got the prosecutrix medically examined. An injury was found on her left hand. 3. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW-2, her father-in-law Mohi Ram as PW-3 and Guman Singh as PW-7. Prosecutrix stated in no uncertain terms that when she was asleep in her house on the relevant night, someone caught hold of her arm and when she woke up she saw the revision petitioner holding her arm and he asked her to let him enjoy sex with her. She also stated that when she opposed, petitioner threatened to kill her and then he took out a sword, which he had kept under her cot and tried to assault her, but she snatched the sword from him and in that process she sustained injury on one of her hands. She stated that when she raised alarm, her father-in-law PW-3 Mohi Ram and PW-7 Guman Singh reached the spot. Her testimony is corroborated by her father-in-law PW-3 Mohi Ram and PW-7 Guman Singh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PW-3 Mohi Ram and PW-7 Guman Singh had not been able to identify the revision petitioner and thus the testimony of the prosecutrix remains uncorroborated. Her testimony is corroborated by her father-in-law PW-3 Mohi Ram and PW-7 Guman Singh. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that PW-3 Mohi Ram and PW-7 Guman Singh had not been able to identify the revision petitioner and thus the testimony of the prosecutrix remains uncorroborated. It is also her submission that it being dark, even the prosecutrix could not have identified the petitioner. The submission has been noticed only to be rejected. 5. Prosecutrix very categorically stated that it was moonlit night and she had identified the petitioner, whom she knew from before, in the moonlight. She stated that the house of the petitioner is only 15-20 minutes walk from her house and their grassy lands adjoin each other’s. There is no reason for disbelieving her testimony to this effect. 6. In view of the above stated position, I see no merit in the present revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.