RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rajesh Kumar has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 366/376/506 Part II IPC vide order dated 13th May, 2000, and vide order on sentence dated 15th May, 2000, awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine of Rs.1000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 376 (f) IPC and for offences punishable under Section 366/506 part -II rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month on each count.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the incident took place on the intervening night of 2nd June, 1998 and 3rd June, 1998, and the FIR was registered on 3rd June, 1998 at 3.40 PM, i.e. after lapse of sufficient time, even then the name of the appellant was not mentioned in the FIR by the mother of the prosecutrix. Even the prosecutrix named the appellant for the first time in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after a period of three months on 3rd September, 1998. Admittedly, the appellant was known to the prosecutrix, despite which he was not named in the FIR. The prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case in cross - examination. The appellant has been falsely implicated, thus he be acquitted of the charges framed.

(3.) Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the appellant is not named in the FIR recorded on 3 rd June, 1998 as prosecutrix was threatened by the appellant not to take his name, however, the identity was revealed in the supplementary statement of the mother, which was recorded on 4th June, 1998 itself. Further the prosecutrix named the appellant in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Both the prosecutrix and her mother have supported the prosecution case which is corroborated by the MLC of the prosecutrix and the CFSL report.