SUMAN @ MOHD HASAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, Suman @ Mohd. Hasan challenges the impugned judgment dated 29th August, 2017 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 452/506/325/366/354B and Sections 376/511 IPC and the order on sentence dated 8th September, 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/-; in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 354B IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are variations in the testimonies of witnesses as to how the appellant entered the house at 1:30 A.M. There were two versions of the prosecution story, one that appellant threatened the husband of the prosecutrix and he ran away and the other that the husband of the prosecutrix chased the appellant. The two relatives have not been examined as prosecution witnesses. Since the prosecutrix became unconscious, she would not have known what had happened. Husband of the prosecutrix was the only eye witness, who purportedly saw the prosecutrix in a naked condition and the appellant lying on top of her. Though there were public witnesses when the prosecutrix was recovered in the aforesaid condition, however, they have not been examined. Injury was due to the fall and not due to sexual offence. Lastly, even on the basis of the evidence on record, no sexual offence has been made out.

(3.) Learned APP for the State submits that the statement of the prosecutrix that the appellant pushed her was corroborated by her husband (PW-2). Further, the prosecutrix was found in naked condition in the godown and semen was found on the underwear of the appellant proving the case of the prosecution. There was recovery of knife and the appellant was apprehended at the spot. Thus the appeal be dismissed.