IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.527 of 2002 Date of decision : June 24, 2009 Prem Chand …Appellant. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : M/s Rakesh Jaswal & N.S. Chandel Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (oral) Appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment, dated 29th July, 2002, of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, whereby he has been convicted of offence, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year. 2. Facts, which have led to the trial and conviction of the appellant, may be stated thus. On 4th August, 2000, around 6 in the evening, prosecutrix had gone to her Ghasni land, in the area of village Katar, when the appellant, who is the son of a brother of prosecutrix’ father-in-law, went there and committed rape on her. Matter was reported to the police, on the next following day. 3. Police got the prosecutrix medically examined. Injuries were found on both her wrists, which, as per the earliest Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… version given to the police, had been sustained by the prosecutrix, when the appellant caught hold of her by her wrists, as a result of which the glass bangles, which she was wearing, got broken. Clothes of the prosecutrix, as also those of the appellant, were sent to the Chemical Examiner, who, vide report Ex. PN, reported that underwear of the appellant and Salwar of the prosecutrix had stains of human semen. 4. During the course of trial, prosecution examined the prosecutrix as PW-2, her husband Ram Krishan as PW-3, the doctor, who conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix, Dr. Mukta, as PW-12, and some other formal witnesses, to substantiate the charge. Appellant took the plea that he had been having strained relations with his father and that his father had been living with his brother, who is the father-in-law of the prosecutrix and that he had been falsely implicated, at the instance of his own father, because he demanded his share from his father in the ancestral property. 5. Learned trial Court has believed the testimony of the prosecutrix, disbelieved the defence version and consequently held the appellant guilty. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and perused the record. 7. Prosecutrix, who appeared as PW-2, testified that she had gone to her Ghasni land in the evening of 4th August, 2000 and that when she was mowing grass, appellant came there and caught hold of her by her arms, due to which her …3… bangles were broken. She also stated that she had been pulled to a distance of about 100 metres and there she was raped. She stated that she raised cries, so that someone, by hearing the same, could come to her rescue, but nobody turned up, as there is no habitation around the place of occurrence. She also stated that she sustained injuries on her wrists, on account of the breaking of the bangles, which she was wearing. Further, she stated that around 7 p.m., she went back to her house and narrated the incident to her husband, who took her to the Police Station, on the next following day, where written complaint, Ex.PB, was made to the SHO. She also stated that she was taken to the hospital by the Police, where her medical examination was conducted. 8. PW-12 Dr. Mukta conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix. She found injuries on her wrists and gave the opinion that the medical examination conducted by her did not rule out the possibility of the prosecutrix having been subjected to sexual intercourse. 9. Testimony of the prosecutrix is corroborated not only by the medical evidence, in the form of testimony of PW-12 Dr. Mukta, as also the medical report, Ex. PA, issued by the said doctor, but also by the earliest version, which she gave to the police vide complaint Ex. PB, as also the testimony of her husband PW-3 Ram Krishan, to whom she narrated the incident soon after it took place. 10. Defence plea is disproved by appellant’s own evidence. He examined two witnesses, namely DW-1 Atma Ram …4… and DW-2 Het Ram, to prove that on the fateful day, around 1.30 p.m., he accompanied by the abovenamed two witnesses had gone to the house of the prosecutrix, where his father lives, and demanded his share in the ancestral property of his father and when he did not agree, he threatened to file a suit against him, upon which the prosecutrix threatened to teach him a lesson. This defence was introduced by DW-1 Atma Ram and DW-2 Het Ram, for the first time. No suggestion was put to the prosecutrix that, on the relevant date, appellant had visited, in the company of the abovenamed two witnesses, and had threatened to file a suit against his father, upon which she threatened to teach him a lesson, though it was suggested that the appellant had visited her house on that date to see his father, which fact she admitted. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the testimony of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as she did not have any mark of violence on her person, despite her having stated that she had been dragged to a distance of 100 metres from the Ghasni, where she was mowing grass. 12. It is true that in English version of the statement of the prosecutrix, it is recorded that she had been dragged to a distance of 100 metres, but vernacular statement suggests that she had not been dragged but only pulled to the place of occurrence from her Ghasni, where she was mowing grass. The words used in vernacular statement are “Khench kar le gaya” and not “Ghaseet kar le gaya”. …5… 13. In view of the abovestated position, I see no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Appellant is directed to surrender to the trial Court, immediately. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has written many letters to the appellant, but he has not responded. If it is so, the Registry is directed to return the record of the trial Court, immediately, with a copy of this judgment, with a direction to the Presiding Officer of the trial Court to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the appellant and to send him to jail to serve out the sentence, which had been suspended by this Court, vide order dated 28th August, 2002, pending disposal of the appeal. Appeal stands disposed of. June 24, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J