Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 775 (UTT)

Ajay Pal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-10-28

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is instituted against the judgment dated 17.05.2013, rendered by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 2013, whereby the appellant-accused was charged with and tried for commission of offences punishable under Sections 376, 511 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to under rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC. He was also convicted and sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment under Section 506 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that PW-2 Bho Singh submitted a report to Patwari Halka Chandrabadni, Tehsil Devprayag, District Tehri Garhwal with the allegation that the prosecutrix (name and address shall not be disclosed) on 29.10.2012 at about 7.30 AM was going to graze the buffalo. The ladies of the village found prosecutrix in unconscious condition. They informed the villagers about this incident. Prosecutrix narrated that the appellant-accused, who is a servant at the shop of Keshwanand at Chandrabadni, forcibly committed rape with her. Prosecutrix was medically examined at Base Hospital, Srinagar. The statements of witnesses were recorded. The investigation was completed and the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. 3. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. 4. After completion of the prosecution evidence, appellant was examined under Section 313 of CrPC and he denied all the allegations leveled by the prosecution. The accused was convicted and sentenced as noted hereinabove. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has supported the judgment dated 17.05.2013. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and record meticulously. 7. PW-1 is the prosecutrix. She testified that she knows Ajay Pal and identified him and stated that six months before at about 7.30 AM, she was going to graze the buffalo alone. The appellant came on the spot. He closed her mouth, dragged her into the bushes and put off her undergarment, she cried. When the appellant heard the voice, he ran away. She testified that she knows Ajay Pal and identified him and stated that six months before at about 7.30 AM, she was going to graze the buffalo alone. The appellant came on the spot. He closed her mouth, dragged her into the bushes and put off her undergarment, she cried. When the appellant heard the voice, he ran away. When he laid her on the ground; she got frightened and cried. In her cross-examination, she stated that appellant is a servant at the shop of Keshwanand at Chandrabadni, and she used to bring milk from the shop of Keshwanand. No injuries were caused to her by the appellant. 8. PW-2 Bho Singh, testified that the prosecutrix is his niece. He runs a shop at Morkhali. At about 7.30-8.00 AM, ladies of the village were going to fetch grass. They informed him that somebody has beaten the prosecutrix. He informed the prosecutrix’s father about the incident, and when he came to know that somebody has committed a crime with his daughter, he filed a report. 9. PW-3 Smt. Geeta Devi, testified that her daughter is 12 years of age, and the incident is of 29.10.2012 at about 7.30 AM to 7.45 AM. She further stated that her daughter was going alone to leave the buffalo in the forest. One Maya Devi told her that somebody has done wrong with her daughter. Prosecutrix was brought to Hindolakhal. From there, she was referred to Srinagar. Prosecutrix stated to her that appellant Ajay Pal has put off her clothes. 10. PW-4 Smt. Sushila, testified that she was going to fetch grass. She found that the prosecutrix was frightened and thereafter, she inquired as to what has happened to her. Prosecutrix told that the servant of the shop dragged her into the bushes and closed her mouth. Thereafter, her father and other people came on the spot. 11. PW-5 Khim Singh, testified that the prosecutrix is 12 years of age, studying in Class-VIII and he is running a shop at Morkhali. On 29.10.2012, prosecutrix went to graze the cattle. He was informed that the prosecutrix was found unconscious in the forest. They removed the prosecutrix and brought her to dispensary. The prosecutrix stated that the accused dragged her into the bushes and put off her undergarments and when he heard the sound of somebody, he ran away. 12. PW-6 Dr. On 29.10.2012, prosecutrix went to graze the cattle. He was informed that the prosecutrix was found unconscious in the forest. They removed the prosecutrix and brought her to dispensary. The prosecutrix stated that the accused dragged her into the bushes and put off her undergarments and when he heard the sound of somebody, he ran away. 12. PW-6 Dr. Satish Kumar, has medically examined the prosecutrix and according to him, on the basis of the medical examination, he could say that no rape was committed with the prosecutrix. 13. PW-7 Komal Singh, was the Revenue Inspector. He testified that people came to him and a report was handed over to him. On the basis of that report, he lodged the first information report in his handwriting. 14. It has come in the evidence that the prosecutrix was in the forest and the accused came there and dragged her into the bushes and removed her clothes. Though the prosecution has failed to prove that any rape was committed but an attempt to commit rape with the prosecutrix was made by the accused by removing her clothes, and the accused ran away from the spot only when other reached the spot. 15. The statement of prosecutrix PW-1 is duly corroborated by the statements of PW-2 Bho Singh, PW-3 Smt. Geeta Devi and PW-5 Khem Singh. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 16. There is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial court. 17. Accordingly, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.