TEJ NARAIN @ NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment dated Aug. 1, 2015, Tej Narain alias Narain, the appellant in Crl. A. 1260/2015, Sukhiya, the appellant in Crl. A. 10/2016 and Ram Udagar, the appellant in Crl. A. 1381/2015 were convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 366 read with Sec. 109 IPC. Tej Narain and Ram Udagar were also convicted for offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(f) IPC. Sukhiya and Ram Udagar were also convicted for offence punishable under Sections 363/365 read with Sec. 34 Penal Code and Sec. 506 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated Aug. 5, 2015, Tej Narain and Ram Udagar were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000.00 each for offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(f) IPC. Tej Narain, Sukhiya and Ram Udagar were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 each for offence punishable under Sec. 366 read with Sec. 109 IPC. Sukhiya and Ram Udagar were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 each for offence punishable under Sec. 363/34 Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 each for offence punishable under Sec. 365/34 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for Tej Narain contends that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the fact that the prosecutrix neither named Tej Narain nor alleged any incident of rape by him in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. Thus, there was material improvement in her deposition before the Court. Further the investigation was faulty and the investigating officer did not collect any evidence from the village which would have proved the innocence of Tej Narain.

(3.) Learned counsel for Sukhiya contends that it is implausible that Sukhiya will facilitate her husband Tej Narain to commit rape upon the prosecutrix. Sukhiya had taken the prosecutrix to the police station as stated by the prosecutrix herself in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr. P.C. There is no whisper in the complaint that the prosecutrix sought action against Sukhiya. It is thus prayed that Sukhiya be acquitted or in the alternative she be released on the period already undergone.