RAMDAYAL KENWAT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 23/07/2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 17/2012 by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Sections 376 read with Section 511 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 3000/- and RI for 5 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, respectively, with default stipulations. The sentences were directed to run one after another.

(2.) Facts of the case are that prior to the incident, the Appellant used to visit the house of the Prosecutrix, a minor girl. At the behest of the Appellant, the Prosecutrix had made a flower pot on a paper. On 05/02/2012 at about 7:30 am, the Appellant came to her house and said that the flower pot which she had made, has been submitted to the teacher and in lieu of that some money will be given to her. He also said to go Barpali and from Barpali to Korba. Then, at about 8:00 am, the Prosecutrix and her father departed for Sarangbudiya Railway station along with the Appellant. Around 09:30 am they reached to the railway station, where the Appellant told her father to stay and take care of his bicycle, and he took the Prosecutrix in a vacant bogie of Chhattisgarh Express train. On the way, he tried to rape with the Prosecutrix. When the Prosecutrix made cry then he threw her from the train, due to which she sustained injuries. One Suraj Kurree had taken the Prosecutrix to the hospital. After getting information, father of the Prosecutrix reached to the hospital and thereafter the Prosecutrix lodged an FIR. Statements of the Prosecutrix and other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. Trial Court framed the charges. To prove the guilt of the Appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C has been recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. No defence wintess has been examined.

(3.) After trial, the trial Court has acquitted the Appellant from the charge framed under Section 3(2)(5) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however, he has been convicted and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.