SAMAY SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convicted for offences punishable under Section 376/511 Penal Code Samay Singh challenges the impugned judgment dated July 05, 2014 and the order on sentence dated July 15, 2014 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000.00 for offence punishable under Sec. 376/511 IPC.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that it appears from the testimony of the prosecutrix that the incident took place on the bed itself where the prosecutrix PW-1 slept on the side of the wall, her brother in the centre and PW-7, the second wife of the appellant near the door. Thus, it was not possible for the appellant to reach to the prosecutrix and the same is evident from the site plan Ex. PW-7/B. Further, as per the complaint, PW-7 stated that she ran to her daughter and the same was accepted by her when the suggestion was put to her.

(3.) It was also contended that there is contradiction in the sequence of arrest which is evident from the testimonies of PW-9 and PW-13. Furthermore, the prosecutrix in her statement under Sec. 164 Cr. P.C. stated that the appellant was taken by the police in the morning itself. The appellant himself has testified as defense witness wherein he stated that he had sold his property for Rs. 50,000 and the money was given to PW-7 who later on gave it to her mother and as a result of which there was a fight between the appellant and PW-7 and that was the reason of him being falsely implicated in the present case. There were letters on record written by PW-7 to the appellant.