BABLU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the challenge is to impugned judgment of 24th September 2013 vide which appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and to impugned order of sentence of 26th September, 2013 vide which he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, with default clause. Appellant also stands convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 363 of IPC and 366 of IPC to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each, with fine of Rs. 5000/- each, with default clause. Trial Court has directed the above sentences to run concurrently. The facts as noted in the impugned judgment are as under:-

(2.) At trial, apart from evidence of parents of prosecutrix, i.e. Krishna (PW-1) and Pushpa (PW-2), there is evidence of neighbours-Dinesh (PW-3) and Pradeep Kumar (PW-5) and that of Dr. Gopal Krishan (PW-8) and Dr. Seema (PW-11) who have proved the MLC of the prosecutrix. ASI Raj Bala (PW-16) is the Investigating Officer of this case. The FSL report has been proved on record by Ms. Shashi Bala (PW-17). While taking note of the stand of appellant of false implication, trial court has relied upon the prosecution evidence to convict and sentence the appellant-accused as noted hereinabove.

(3.) The challenge to the impugned conviction and sentence is on the ground that evidence of parents of prosecutrix is contradictory. It is pointed out by learned counsel for appellant that it has come in evidence of prosecutrix's father (PW-1) that he had allowed prosecutrix to play with appellant-accused, whereas prosecutrix's mother (PW-2) in her evidence has maintained that they were not on talking terms with appellant-accused. Learned counsel for appellant draws attention of this Court to FSL report to point out that the report regarding the grouping of semen is not conclusive and so benefit of doubt ought to be extended to appellant, who had taken a plea of alibi before the trial court. To submit so, attention of this Court is drawn to the cross-examination of prosecutrix's father to show that appellant used to leave for work in the evening by 7:00 P.M. or so and used to return back from his work in the morning at about 7:00 A.M. on the next day. Thus, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that impugned judgment and sentence deserves to be set aside while extending the benefit of doubt to appellant.