OMPRAKASH @ BHURU YADU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dtd. 17/4/2012 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No.49/2011 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Ss. 450, 506 Part-II, 376 and 392 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.2,000.00 u/s 450, RI for three years u/s 506 Part- II, RI for seven years with fine of Rs.2,000.00 u/s 376 and RI for five years with fine of Rs.1,000.00 u/s 392 of IPC with default stipulations.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 31/12/2010 around 9 p.m. the prosecutrix was all alone at her home and after having her dinner she closed the door and went to sleep. At about 10 p.m. someone knocked the door and upon opening the door, the prosecutrix found the appellant standing near the door. She asked the appellant to run away from there and immediately closed the door. But the appellant forcefully pushed the door and is said to have forced the prosecutrix inside the house. It is alleged that on the threat of life by a knife the appellant committed rape with her and also taken Rs.500.00 from her. Immediately after the incident, the prosecutrix is said to have informed PW-1 Jethuram and PW-2 Taran Das the Kotwar of the village and later on, they had also gone to the house of the village Sarpanch PW-3 Purendra Sahu. Thereafter, an FIR was lodged at Police Station Ranitarai registered as Crime No. 1/2011. The Police Authorities initially lodged the offence under Ss. 450, 376, 506B and 384 of IPC. After investigation was conducted, charge sheet was filed for the offence under Ss. 450, 506 Part-II, 376 and 392 of IPC. The matter was put to trial before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg which was registered as Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2011.

(3.) The prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses. There was no witness examined on behalf of the defence. After recording of the evidence and completion of the pleadings, the Court below vide impugned judgment dtd. 17/4/2012 found the appellant to be guilty of having committed the offence under Ss. 450, 506 Part-II, 376 and 392 of IPC and accordingly convicted him for the said offences and sentenced as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment.