SAJJAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused had been convicted for the offence under Section 376 read with Sections 365 & 342 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 365 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and for the offence under Section 342 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE version as set up by the prosecution is that on 31.03.1998 one 'M ' (name undisclosed) at about 12 noon (aged about 13 years) was attending to her household chores along with her mother. Accused Sajjan Lal who was residing in their neighbourhood reached there. 'M ' enquired from him whether he had a newspaper to which he replied that he would ascertain the same from Ashok. 'M ' accompanied accused Sajjan to the house of Ashok where as soon as she reached there accused Ashok closed the door of the room and committed rape upon her. The co-accused Sajjan Lal also raped her. The act was repeated. While doing so, her mouth was gagged. Blood was also oozing out from her private part; she reached home. On inquiry by her mother, the incident was revealed to her. Matter was then reported to the police and the aforenoted FIR was registered.

(3.) 'M ' being the star witness of the prosecution was examined as PW-4. She has reiterated her version as set up by the prosecution. On oath she has deposed that accused Sajjan had taken her to the house of accused Ashok and after striping her clothes, he committed rape upon her along with the co-accused Ashok; she started bleeding from her private parts; her underwear was taken into possession. In her crossexamination, she has stated that accused Sajjan was known to her two months prior to the date of the incident and his house was also known to her. She has admitted that although she cannot read a newspaper but the newspaper was needed by her to spread it in the almirahas; she denied the suggestion that accused persons had not committed rape upon her.