DURGA GOND Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 28/9/2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No.176/ 2011, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Sec. 376 (unamended as Sec. 376 suffered amendment w.e.f. 3/2/2013) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000.00, in default of payment of fine amount, 6 months additional simple imprisonment.

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30/7/2011 at about 11:00 p.m. at village Lakhasar, Police Station Hirri, the appellant committed sexual intercourse with his daughter/ victim, who was aged about 8 years on the date of offence; thereby the offence has been committed. Further case of the prosecution is that, on 30/7/2011, mother of the victim Neeta had gone to village Khamhariya with her husband/appellant, but the appellant came back. Then on the next day, when she came back to her house, the victim informed her that yesterday night at about 11:00 p.m., her father i.e. appellant herein committed rape with her, by which she suffered bleeding. Thereafter, the complainant/ mother of the victim informed the matter to her in-laws and then the matter was reported to the police and FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1. Thereafter, consent of victim's mother Neeta and that of the victim was taken for medical examination of the victim and she was medically examined by Dr. S.Thakur (PW-10) vide Ex.P-18, according to which the victim was subjected to sexual intercourse. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law, in which the accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence.

(3.) In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness, nor exhibited any documents.