JUMERAT KHAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 09/09/2008 passed in S.T. No. 27/2008 by the Tenth Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Raipur, whereby the Appellant has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the age of the Prosecutrix (not examined) was about 17 years at the relevant time. According to the case of the prosecution, the Prosecutrix was lunatic. Mother of the Prosecutrix Roshan Aara (PW1) made a report on 05/10/2007 with the averments that her daughter (Prosecutrix) aged about 17 years is mentally retarded girl and is not able to speak properly. She had taken the Prosecutrix to Nagpur for treatment. After returning from there, she visited to Raipur to meet their relatives. After returning from there at about 8:00 in the night she reached at Pandri Bus stand for catching a bus, but she came to know that there was no bus available at that time, and the next bus was available at about 5:00 in the morning. Thereafter, she decided to stay in the waiting room of the bus-stand. She made her daughter lie down beside her and she sat there. During this period, one person (Appellant) came there and stared them frequently. After one hour, the Appellant along with his friend came there with a mosquito coil and sat beside her daughter. He started to make acquaintance with them and said he is also Musalman. He also told that since they are Musalman, therefore, in this manner she is her sister and as such he is maternal uncle of her daughter. In this way, he collected all the information about them. The Appellant also introduced his friend as Sabbir. They asked them to accompany for meal, but she refused to go. Thereafter, the Appellant and his friend went away from there. After 1- 1 1/2 hours, the Appellant again came there with his bed-sheet and slept there. After some time, his friend Sabbir went away from the spot asking the Appellant to leave, but the Appellant remain stayed there. At about 3:30 in the night, when people started coming to bus stand, she felt relaxed. Later on, she got fall in sleep. When she got-up and saw that the nearby light had gone off and her daughter was not there, she made hue and cry. Listening her noise, people assemble there and made search for her daughter. One person came there and told that her daughter is standing in between two buses. When she reached there and saw, her daughter was not wearing Salwar. In the meantime, some persons switched on the light and they found that the Salwar of the Prosecutrix was lying on the bed- sheet of the Appellant. On being asked, the Appellant accepted his mistake and thereafter he fled away from the spot. The matter was reported by Roshan Aara (PW1). On the basis of said report, offence has been registered. Statement of the Witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The Prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Anusuiya Dutt (PW7). Her report is Ex.P-12. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed. Trial Court framed the charges. As many as 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Statement of the Appellant has been recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. No defence witness has been examined.

(3.) After trial, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.