ADITYA @ VICKY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 13.9.2012 and 24.9.2012 respectively wherein the appellant had been convicted under Section 376 of the IPC read with Section 506 of the IPC. For his conviction under Section 376 of the IPC he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- which was to be paid to the victim as compensation in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months. For his conviction under Section 509 of the IPC he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for period of 15 days. Both the sentences were to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. had also been granted to the appellant.

(2.) Nominal roll of the appellant reflects that as on date he has undergone incarceration of 3 years.

(3.) The version of the prosecution was unfolded in the testimony of prosecutrix who has been examined as PW-8. She was admittedly a minor as on the date of the offence. She was aged 14 years and 9 months. The fact that she was a minor has not been disputed. Her version is that on 20.10.2011 at about 1.30 p.m. when she was returning home from her school the appellant who was known to her had taken her inside a factory where 2-3 other persons were also present. Those boys were sent out of the factory. The appellant locked the door of the factory and committed rape upon her. She was threatened not to disclose the incident to anyone or he would electrocute her. Apart from the statement of PW-1 her paternal aunt (Chachi) was examined. She entered into the witness box as PW-6. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. She was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW-7/A. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no external injury has been noted upon her person. This clearly show that no forceful act of rape was committed upon her as is her submission. The site plan has been proved as Ex. PW-13/B. Attention has been drawn to point A where the alleged offence has been committed. It is pointed out that this is a busy junction and if the offence was committed in the afternoon at 1.30 p.m. it is impossible to believe that when prosecutrix had raised alarm no one came to save her.