VINOD KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 27-2-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea in Sessions Trial No. 440/2002. By the impugned judgment, accused persons/appellants Vinod Kumar Sahu and Hemantchand Sahu have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:--

(2.) Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the FIR was lodged belatedly. In the written complaint (Ex. P-6) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-10), no allegation has made regarding rape. It is a case of false implication. He further argued that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective and unduly attached too much importance to the statement of prosecutrix (PW-4). There are inherent probabilities in the evidence of prosecutrix (PW-4), which make the prosecution case doubtful. This aspect was totally ignored by the learned trial Court. He placed reliance on State Vs. Vicky and others, 2012 CrLJ 3904.

(3.) On the other hand, Shri Vinay Harit, learned Deputy Advocate General and Smt. Madhunisha Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to the appellants do not warrant any interference by this Court.