STATE OF U P Vs. PAPPU ALIAS YUNUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The State of U. P. has questioned in this appeal correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court at lucknow directing acquittal of the respondents (hereafter referred to as the 'accused') - The respondents were charged for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc'). The Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sitapur found them guilty and sentenced each to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -.

(3.) The factual position in a nutshell is that while the prosecutrix was alone in her house, at about 11. 00 a. m. on 21-5-1987 since her mother had gone out to market for purchasing vegetables, the respondents who belonged to her locality came to her house, knocked the door. The prosecutrix asked them as to who they were and they disclosed their identity. The prosecutrix refused to open the door as her mother was not at home,. But both the accused persons went to the neighbouring house and came to the roof of her house and jumped into the courtyard and showed her a 'tamancha'. She was first raped by accused-respondent-Mannoo and thereafter by accused-respondent-Pappoo. After sometime her mother came home and knocked the door and hearing the voice of knocking, the accused persons ran away and climbed over the roof. While they were climbing, the mother had seen them and she started shouting and hearing it one Vimalesh Kumar Verma of the locality came there and he also saw both the accused persons running away. Written report of the incident was lodged at the Police Station at 3.10 p. m. Investigation was undertaken. The prosecutrix was sent to the District hospital for medical check up. The accused persons were also sent for medical examination and their clothings were sent for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and accused persons were sent up for trial. The accused persons pleaded innocence. In the additional statements submitted during examination under Sectibn 313 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'code') respondent-Pappoo stated that the prosecutrix was not having a good character arid since her house was in front of his house, he and his family members asked them to leave that place and hence the false case was foisted. To similar effect was the plea of accused-Mannoo.