MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 14.8.2013 and 30.8.2013 wherein the appellant had been convicted under Sections 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC as also under sections 342/323/201/506 of the IPC. He had been awarded a sentence of RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months his conviction under Section 376 read with Section 511 of the IPC; he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25000/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of 6 months; for his conviction under Sections 323/342 of the IPC he has to undergo RI for a period of 1 year each; for his conviction under Section 201 he had been sentenced to undergo SI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - in default of payment of fine to under SI for 3 months; for his conviction under Section 506 of the IPC he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months. Sentences were run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C. had also been granted.

(2.) THE version of the prosecution is that the 12 year old daughter of Smt. Surji Rawat (PW -4) had become the victim of lust of the appellant. The victim "S" a minor aged 12 years was examined as PW -3. The FIR was registered on the complaint of PW -4. Her version was that the appellant was known to the victim and her family and was running a medical store in front of their house. PW -4 and the appellant developed a relationship and solemnized a marriage in the year 2008. They started living together as husband and wife. PW -3 was a child born out of the first marriage of PW -4. On 30.10.2011 the appellant had taken PW -3 on his motor cycle on the pretext of dropping her at her hostel but he instead took her to a two storeyed building where he attempted to commit rape upon her. PW -4 was shocked when she learnt of this on the narration given to her by PW -3. PW -3 disclosed to her mother that the appellant who was to drop her to the hostel did not take her there but instead had taken her to a room where he put his male organ in her vagina and tried to insert the same into it. Since he could not insert it he inserted his finger in order to widen her vagina. She described the manner in which the appellant made her suffer the obscene act and forced her to follow the scenes in the obscene pornographic film shown to her. She was also threatened not to disclose the incident to any person.

(3.) ON the basis of the aforenoted evidence oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforenoted.