AMAR KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amar Kumar Pandey challenges the impugned judgment dated 27th August, 2015 convicting him for the offences punishable under Section 376/307 IPC and the order on sentence dated 11 th September, 2015 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-13) by itself shows that the offence under Section 376 IPC is not made out as she herself stated that the appellant never refused to marry her. Promise to marry was only incidental. With respect to recovery of phone, the location of the phone has not been mentioned. Phone was not identified by the prosecutrix and CDRs of the phone were also not exhibited. The CDRs available on record are for the period from 17th August, 2013 to 20th August, 2013 which belie the version of the prosecutrix. No independent witness was associated with the recovery of knife and the knife in question has not been put to the prosecutrix, thus, it cannot be said that it relates to the offence. Knife was not recovered from/near the spot. No fingerprints were taken. When Ct. Monu (PW-9) and SI Satish Kumar (PW-11) went to the spot, nothing was found. Neither the crime team visited the spot nor were the photographs taken. As per the MLC, only injury no. 4 was caused by a sharp weapon, rest all were caused by a blunt weapon.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the prosecution case stands proved not only on the basis of testimony of the prosecutrix but also by the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Since nothing was visible on the spot, the crime team could not recover anything from the spot. Appellant has been rightly convicted by the Learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record and the appeal be dismissed.