MOHIT PAUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the impugned judgment dated Sept. 11, 2015, Mohit Paul, the appellant in Crl. A.128/2016 was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g)/323/363 IPC, Sharad Kumar, the appellant in Crl. A.1179/2015 and Amit Yadav the appellant in Crl. A. 64/2016 were convicted for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(g)/323 read with Sec. 34 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated Sept. 30, 2015 they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 each for offence punishable under Sec. 376(2)(g) Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 each for offence punishable under Sec. 323 IPC. Mohit Paul was also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsels for Mohit Paul and Sharad Kumar contend that the version of the prosecutrix, PW-12 is highly illogical and improbable regarding her kidnapping by Mohit Paul. PW-12 had herself admitted that she was taken from R.K. Puram to Mohammadpur when she had all the time to raise loud noise for help as the area is crowded during the evening hours. Furthermore, the prosecutrix had ample opportunity to run away but she did not do so. There are material contradictions in the testimony of PW-12. The FSL report and the serology report Ex. PW-18/A and Ex. PW-18/B respectively also do not support the prosecution case as the results were inconclusive. Learned Trial Court failed to deal with the aspect of 'common intention' and without there being any overt act, Sharad Kumar has been convicted.

(3.) Learned counsel for Amit Yadav contends that the prosecutrix is not a trustworthy and reliable witness. Thus conviction of the appellant or other accused persons could not be based on her solitary testimony. It was further contended that it is incomprehensible that Mohit Paul kidnapped the prosecutrix and made her sit as a pillion rider on his motorcycle by holding her hands with one of his hand and riding the bike with another hand. Furthermore, neither there were any injury marks on the body of the prosecutrix nor her clothes were torn though the prosecutrix alleged that she was dragged to the second floor of the house where the incident took place and the same is fortified by the MLC Ex. PW- 14/A.