Himachal Pradesh High Court
Yashpal And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 4 April, 2016
Bench: Sanjay Karol, P.S. Rana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeals No.291 & 296 of 2015 Reserved on : 1.3.2016 .
Date of Decision : April 4, 2016 Cr.A No.291/2015 Yashpal and others ...Appellants.
Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondent.
Cr.A No.296/2015
of
Paras Ram ...Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh
rt ...Respondent
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S. Rana, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? No. 1For the Appellants : Mr. B.S. Thakur, Advocate, in Cr.A No.291/2015, and Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, in Cr.A No.296/2015.
For the Respondent : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Kush Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General.
Sanjay Karol, Judge Since both these appeals arise out of the very same impugned judgment, they are being disposed of as such.
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP...2...
2. Appellants-convicts Paras Ram, Yashpal, Trishla alias Sheela, Gurdiyal and Bimla Devi, hereinafter referred to as the accused, have assailed the judgment .
dated 17.6.2015, passed by Special Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No.143 of 2013, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh v. Paras Ram and others, whereby they stands convicted and of sentenced as under:
Convict Paras Ram rt Offence Section 363 IPC Sentence Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of `2,000/-, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Section 376 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of `2,000/-, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
Section 120-B Rigorous Imprisonment for a period IPC of two years and fine of `2,000/-, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
Section 4 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for a period Protection of of ten years and fine of `2,000/-, and Children from in default thereof to further undergo Sexual simple imprisonment for a period of Offences Act. three three.
Convicts Yashpal, Trishla alias Sheela, Gurdial Singh and Bimla Devi Offence Sentence ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...3...
Section 363 IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years each and fine of `2,000/- each, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three .
months each.
Section 366-A Rigorous Imprisonment for a period IPC of three years each and fine of `2,000/- each , and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each.
Section 120-B Rigorous Imprisonment for a period IPC of two years each and fine of `2,000/-
of each, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
The substantive sentences, in respect of all the convicts rt have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. It is the case of prosecution that prosecutrix (PW-2), a 10th Class student, was residing in village Kamera, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, with her parents. On 19.8.2013, the eve of Raksha Bandhan, her parents left her in the village, for they had to celebrate the festival in village Arsu, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu. Prosecutrix and her sister Kumari Lata (PW-3) were to be taken care of by a co-villager. On 20.8.2013, prosecutrix was persuaded to visit the house of accused Bimla Devi, where she found accused Yashpal, Trishla and Gurdial sitting. They all goaded the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...4...
prosecutrix to get married accused Paras Ram, more so on the ground that he belonged to a good family and was working in some Project. Without agreeing to the same, .
prosecutrix informed them that her parents were not at home. Then the accused asked her to cook food for them, which she did at her home, where except accused Paras Ram, all came and had the same. At about 11 p.m., of prosecutrix was woken up by accused Trishla and Bimla Devi and taken away from her house, for solemnizing her rt marriage with accused Paras Ram. She was made to sit in a vehicle bearing No.HP-01K-3714 and after concealing her identity, taken to a place known as Randal, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, from where she was taken to Sharnidhar and made to stay with accused Paras Ram, who in the night of 25th & 26th August, 2013, subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse.
4. Finding the prosecutrix to be missing from home, Kumari Lata informed her father Inder Singh (PW-
1), who fanatically searched for her. On 29.8.2013, prosecutrix was brought back to her village, when on the basis of his statement, FIR No.74/13, dated 28.8.2013 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...5...
(Ex.PW-1/A) was registered at Police Station Banjar (Seraj), District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh.
5. SI Chint Ram (PW-13) carried out the .
investigation in the case. Prosecutrix was got medically examined from Dr. Tanu (PW-11), who issued MLC (Ex.PW-11/C), opining that factum of sexual intercourse.
Record pertaining to the date of birth of the prosecutrix of (Ex.PW-4/B) was taken on record. Incriminating articles, which were taken into possession by the police, were also rt sent for chemical analysis to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Central Range, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. On receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner (Ex.PW-11/B) and with the completion of investigation, which prima facie revealed complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, challan was presented in the Court for trial.
6. Accused Paras Ram was charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 363, 366-A, read with Section 120-B IPC, 376 IPC and Sections 4 & 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); and all other accused namely Trishla, Gurdial Singh, ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...6...
Yash Pal and Bimla Devi were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 363, 366-A, read with Section 120-B IPC, to .
which all the accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and statements of of the accused under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were also recorded, in which rt all the accused pleaded innocence and false implication.
Also, they have not led any evidence in defence.
8. Based on the testimonies of witnesses and the material on record, trial Court convicted all the accused and sentenced them as aforesaid. Hence, the present appeal by the accused.
9. However, accused Paras Ram stands acquitted of the offence, punishable under the provisions of Section 366-A IPC.
10. We have heard Mr. B.S. Thakur and Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocates, on behalf of the accused-appellants as also Mr. V.S. Chauhan, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Kush Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...7...
General, and Mr. J.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, on behalf of the State. 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 of based on complete, correct and proper appreciation of evidence (documentary and ocular) so placed on record.
rt There is neither any illegality/infirmity nor any perversity with the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice.
11. Dr. Tanu Sharma (PW-11), who examined the prosecutrix, has opined as under:
"........
No mark of any injury seen on vulval area and inner side of thigh Labia mijora not covering labia minora. One tear present at 7. O'clock position of hymen bleeds on touch. Intriotus admits two fingers with pain.
After examination, I preserved vaginal slides from posterior forenix. Those were sealed with hospital seals and handed over to the police for chemical examination. The duration of hymen tear was 3-4 days. As per disclosure of the prosecutrix, she had taken bath twice after the incident..........."::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP
...8...
Her opinion also stands recorded in the MLC (Ex.PW-
11/C).
12. To this extent, the medical evidence, which is .
only corroborative in nature, stands proved on record by the prosecution.
13. According to the prosecution, prosecutrix was born on 6.9.1995. For establishing such fact, Uttam of Singh (PW-4), Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Tung, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh stands examined rt in Court. Witness has been able to establish the date of birth, so recorded in the Register of Births and Deaths, maintained by the Secretary of the Gram Panchayat. As per the Birth Certificate (Ex.PW-4/B), prosecutrix was born on 6.9.1995. Said certificate being a public document raises presumption of truth, which in our considered view goes unrebutted on record.
14. In any event, we find the unrebutted testimony of Inder Singh, father of the prosecutrix, to the effect that "the date of birth of prosecutrix (name withheld) is 6.9.1995 and it is correct". Significantly, there is no cross-examination with regard to the same.
He has also deposed that as on the date of the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...9...
occurrence of the offence, prosecutrix was studying in Class-10.
15. Thus, by leading clear, cogent and convincing .
piece of evidence prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, age of the prosecutrix to be 17 years 11 months and 22 days, as on the date of the occurrence of the offence. Prosecutrix has been of established to be a minor.
16. The issue, which still requires consideration, is rt as to whether prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused, in relation to the charged offences or not. For establishing the same, our attention is invited to the testimonies of the prosecutrix (PW-2), her father Inder Singh (PW-1), sister Kumari Lata (PW-3) and Prem Chand (PW-5).
17. It is one of those unfortunate cases, where in Court, father has not supported his own daughter (prosecutrix). But then, such fact would not render the prosecution case to be doubtful or testimonies of other witnesses to be unbelievable or the witnesses not worthy of credence.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP...10...
18. Inder Singh does state that on the eve of Raksha Bandhan, he had gone to village Arsu alongwith his wife, leaving his daughters to be taken care of by his .
nephew. His daughter Kumari Lata telephonically informed him that prosecutrix had gone to the house of Massi. When he returned on 28.8.2013, prosecutrix was already home. This is what he says in his examination-in-
of chief, but when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, admits to have lodged a complaint with the police, but rt compromised the matter, by stating that "I know all the accused present in the court. It is correct that since the accused are from my village, so I do not want that any action should be taken against them. It is correct that for this reason, I am resiling from my statement". His testimony establishes two facts: (i) he had left the prosecutrix and her sister in the village, (ii) he was informed of the prosecutrix missing from home.
19. It is well settled that a prosecutrix complaining of having been a victim of the offence of rape is not an accomplice after the crime. There is no rule of law that her testimony cannot be acted without corroboration in material particulars. Her testimony has ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...11...
to be appreciated on the principle of probabilities just as the testimony of any other witness; a high degree of probability having been shown to exist in view of the .
subject matter being a criminal charge. However, if the Court on facts may find it difficult to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may search for evidence, direct or circumstantial, which would lend of assurance to her testimony. Assurance, short of corroboration as understood in the context of an rt accomplice would do.
20. In Indian Woman Says Gang-Raped on Orders of Village Court Published in Business and Financial News Dated 23.1.2014, In Re, (2014) 4 SCC 786, the Apex Court has highlighted the need for having an effective State police machinery for curbing the menace of rape, for such crime is not only in contravention of the domestic laws, but is also in direct breach of obligations under International Law, treaties whereof stand ratified by the State, which is under an obligation to protect its women from any kind of discrimination.
21. The Apex Court has highlighted the need for prompt disposal of cases of crime against women and ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...12...
children. (Rajkumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 353).
22. In Shyam Narain v. State (NCT of Delhi), .
(2013) 7 SCC 77, the Apex Court held as under:
"27. Respect for reputation of women in the society shows the basic civility of a civilised society. No member of society can afford to conceive the idea that he can create a hollow in the honour of a woman. Such thinking is not only of lamentable but also deplorable. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the thought of sullying the physical frame of a woman is the demolition of the accepted civilized norm, i.e., "physical rtmorality". In such a sphere, impetuosity has no room. The youthful excitement has no place. It should be paramount in everyone's mind that, on one hand, the society as a whole cannot preach from the pulpit about social, economic and political equality of the sexes and, on the other, some pervert members of the same society dehumanize the woman by attacking her body and ruining her chastity. It is an assault on the individuality and inherent dignity of a woman with the mindset that she should be elegantly servile to men. Rape is a monstrous burial of her dignity in the darkness. It is a crime against the holy body of a woman and the soul of the society and such a crime is aggravated by the manner in which it has been committed. We have emphasised on the manner because, in the present case, the victim is an eight year old girl who possibly would be deprived of the dreams of "Spring of Life" and might be psychologically compelled to remain in the "Torment of Winter". When she suffers, the collective at large also suffers. Such a singular crime creates an atmosphere of fear which is historically abhorred by the society. It demands just punishment from the court and to such a demand, the courts of law are bound to respond within legal parameters. It is a demand for justice and the award of punishment has to be in ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...13...
consonance with the legislative command and the discretion vested in the court."
23. In Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), .
(2012) 7 SCC 171, the apex Court has cautioned the Court to adopt the following approach:
"The courts while trying an accused on the charge of rape, must deal with the case with utmost sensitivity, examining the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by minor contradictions or insignificant discrepancies of in the evidence of the witnesses which are not of a substantial character."
24. The Apex Court in Munna v. State of Madhya rt Pradesh, (2014) 10 SCC 254, has reiterated the principle that testimony of prosecutrix is almost at par with an immediate witness and can be acted upon without corroboration.
25. Also, it is a settled principle of law that absence of injuries on the external or internal parts of the victim by itself cannot be a reason to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix. (See: Mukesh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014) 10 SC 327); State of Haryana v.
Basti Ram, (2013) 4 SCC 200; O.M. Baby (Dead) by Legal Representative v. State of Keral, (2012) 11 SCC 362; and State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 550).
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP...14...
26. The apex Court in Roop Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 7 SCC 89, held that:
"9. In State of U.P. v. Chhotey Lal (2011) 2 SCC .
550, the following passage from the judgment of a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of H.P. v. Mango Ram on the meaning of "consent" for the purpose of the offence of rape as defined in Section 375 IPC, is quoted: (Chhotey Lal (2011) 2 SCC 550, SCC p. 560, para 20) "20. ... '13. ... Consent for the purpose of Section 375 requires voluntary participation of not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between rt resistance and assent. Whether there was consent or not, is to be ascertained only on a careful study of all relevant circumstances.' (Mango Ram case (2000) 7 SCC 224, SCC 230-31, para 13)"
27. The Apex Court in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana, (2013) 7 SCC 675, has further held that "Consent may be express or implied, coerced or misguided, obtained willingly or through deceipt.
Consent is an act of reason, accompanied by deliberation, the mind weighing, as in a balance, the good and evil on each side. The Court must examine whether there was made, at an early stage a false promise of marriage by the accused; and whether the consent involved was given ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...15...
after wholly understanding the nature and consequences of sexual indulgence".
28. Reiterating its earlier view in Mohd. Iqbal v.
.
State of Jharkhand, (2013) 14 SCC 481; Narender Kumar v. State (NCT of Delh), (2012) 7 SCC 171, the Apex Court in Mukesh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2014) 10 SC 327, has held that sole testimony of prosecutrix is sufficient to of establish commission of rape, even in the absence of any corroborative evidence.
29. rt In Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 11 SCC 688, the apex Court held as under:
"33. It will be useful to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of O.M. Baby v. State of Kerala, (2012) 11 SCC 362, where the Court held as follows:-
"17. ..... '16. A prosecutrix of a sex offence cannot be put on a par with an accomplice.
She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the court must be alive to and conscious of the fact ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...16...
that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there .
is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to Illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a rt prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.
18. We would further like to observe that while appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the court must keep in mind that in the context of the values prevailing in the country, particularly in rural India, it would be unusual for a woman to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person. Such a view has been expressed by the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384 and has found reiteration in a recent judgment in Rajinder @ Raju v. State of H.P., (2009) 16 SCC 69, para 19 whereof may be usefully extracted:
'19. In the context of Indian culture, a woman - victim of sexual aggression - would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...17...
somebody. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. While appreciating the evidence .
of the prosecutrix, the courts must always keep in mind that no self-respecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for. But for high improbability in the prosecution case, the conviction in the case of sex crime may be based on the sole of testimony of the prosecutrix. It has been rightly said that corroborative evidence is not an imperative component of judicial credence in every case of rape nor the rt absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim can be construed as evidence of consent.' "
30. Perusal of testimony of prosecutrix reveals that she has not only withstood the test of cross-
examination, but also her statement is clear, consistent and cogent. There are no material contradictions, rendering her statement to the false, incorrect or doubtful. She has deposed that on the eve of Raksha Bandhan, her parents and brother had gone to the house of her maternal grandparents, situate in village Arsu, Tehsil Nirmand. She and her sister remained behind to be taken care by relative Darwari Lal. Accused Bimla Devi came to their house and asked her to accompany ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...18...
her to Dhaniar fair, to which she refused. However, her sister Kumari Lata went there. On 20.8.2013, she was called by accused Bimla Devi to her house, where .
accused Sheela, Yashpal and Gurdiyal were also present.
They asked her to solemnize her marriage with accused Paras Ram, to which she declined. She cooked food, which was consumed by them. In the night, accused of Bimla Devi and Sheela made her wear the bridal dress and thereafter all the accused took her in a vehicle to Sheela-Pul.
rt It was only on 28.8.2013, when she got unwell that parents of accused Paras Ram brought her back to her house. Whereafter, complaint was lodged with the police. She was medically examined and police took into possession incriminating articles, such as her clothes etc.
31. Further, no doubt, she admits the accused not to have used any force, but then she is categorical that in good faith and on the asking of the accused, she left her house in their company. She is certain about the sexual assault, which was forcible in nature and without her consent. Significantly, there is no cross-examination on ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...19...
this count. She was subjected to sexual assault on more than one occasion.
32. Testimony of the prosecutrix stands materially .
corroborated by her sister Kumari Lata on all counts. Our specific attention is invited to her admission to the effect that she had married accused Paras Ram. But then, such fact does not contradict the statement of prosecutrix or of for that matter prosecution case. Prosecutrix was made to wear bridal dress and the accused got her married to rt Paras Ram. Neither did she leave her home of her own, nor could the accused have her marriage solemnized, for she was minor at that point in time. In any case, such marriage was not voluntary.
33. Prem Chand is another witness, who has corroborated the statement of the prosecutrix. He is the owner of the vehicle in which the prosecutrix and the accused travelled. From the line of his cross-
examination, accused wants the Court to believe that prosecutrix had voluntarily left her home and solemnized her marriage, which fact, we do not find to have been probablized on record.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP...20...
34. Prosecutrix, as observed earlier, being a minor, was goaded and enticed by the accused to leave her parental house and against her wishes, was got .
married to accused Paras Ram, by painting a rosy picture that he was gainfully employed in some Project. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the prosecutrix hails from the remotest corner of the State and could be easily of swayed and come under the influence of the accused persons. Kidnapping/abduction of the prosecutrix, with an rt intent of forcing her to marry and seducing her to have illicit intercourse, stands proved on record by leading clear and cogent piece of evidence. Prosecutrix being a minor was taken away from the lawful custody and guardianship. No force was used, but then influencing the mind of a minor by goading and inciting would meet the ingredients of offence of kidnapping. The intent and object being common
35. Submission made on behalf of the accused that non-examination of mother of the prosecutrix and Darbari Lal (independent witnesses of the village), would render the prosecution case to be doubtful and fatal, is untenable in law. Sole testimony of the prosecutrix, duly ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...21...
inspiring in confidence, even in the absence of corroboration, is sufficient enough to establish the charge against the accused. Significantly, from the line of cross-
.
examination, it is evident that the accused do not deny having come to the house of the accused and then taken her away in a vehicle. Prosecutrix was found missing for eight days and at the earliest point in time complaint of lodged.
36. From the material placed on record, it stands established rt by the prosecution witnesses that the accused are guilty of having committed the offences charged for. There is sufficient, convincing, cogent and reliable evidence on record to this effect. The circumstances stand conclusively proved by unbroken chain of unimpeachable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The guilt of the accused stands proved beyond reasonable doubt to the hilt. The chain of events stand conclusively established and lead only to one conclusion, i.e. guilt of the accused. Circumstances when cumulatively considered fully establish completion of chain of events, indicating the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis other than the same. It cannot be said ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...22...
that accused are innocent or not guilty or that they have been falsely implicated or that their defence is probable or that the evidence led by the prosecution is .
inconsistent, unreliable, untrustworthy and unbelievable.
It cannot be said that the version narrated by the witnesses in Court is in a parrot-like manner and hence is to be disbelieved.
of
37. In our considered view, prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, by leading rt clear, cogent, convincing and reliable piece of evidence, that the accused persons after hatching a criminal conspiracy, abducted the prosecutrix, who was a minor, from the lawful custody of her parents with the intent of seducing her to have illicit intercourse with accused Paras Ram and in prosecution of such conspiracy accused Paras Ram raped her.
38. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no reason to interfere with the 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 ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP ...23...
appreciation of the material so placed on record by the parties. Hence, the appeals are dismissed.
Appeals stand disposed of, so also pending .
application(s), if any.
( Sanjay Karol ), Judge.
of
( P.S. Rana ),
April 4, 2016(sd) Judge.
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:02:38 :::HCHP