LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-131

RAMJEE LAL Vs. STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI

Decided On May 04, 2017
Ramjee Lal Appellant
V/S
State (Govt Of Nct) Delhi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 24.01.2013 by which the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 376/342/506/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). By an order of the same date, the appellant stands sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.50,000.00 in default of payment of which, the appellant was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sec. 376 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default of payment of which, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Sec. 342 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.10,000.00 in default of payment of which, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Sec. 506 IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default of payment of which, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Sec. 323 IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case which was established by the prosecution before the Trial Court was that on 03.03.2012 between 10 AM to 10:30 AM and again between 2 to 3 PM, the accused/appellant herein had committed rape upon the prosecutrix (PW-3) at her house by wrongly confining her in her room and on both occasions, intimidated the prosecutrix (PW-3) that he would kill her and her husband (PW-4) if the prosecutrix (PW-3) revealed the incident.

(3.) Mr. Qayum, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Trial Court has erred in passing the impugned judgment inasmuch as the same has been passed upon wrong appreciation of facts. The judgment is contrary to the law. Counsel contends that the Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant without considering that there is not enough material which could justify his conviction.