LAWS(UTN)-2010-4-155

VIJAY @ BHOORA Vs. STATE

Decided On April 09, 2010
Vijay @ Bhoora Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the consolidated judgment and order dated 12.6.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (EC Act), Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 2/1995 and 3/1995 State v. Vijay @ Bhoora, whereby the appellant/accused Vijay @ Bhoora has been convicted under Sections 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) and Section 25/4 of the Arms Act (for short, the Act) and he was sentenced to undergo five years' R.I. under Section 376 IPC and one year's R.I. under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case is that PW3 Naresh Kumar lodged an FIR Ex. Ka -1 on 24.10.1994 at 8.10 pm with PS Bindal, Dehradun with the averments that his mother -in -law Roshni Devi (PW2) was the resident of Indira Colony, Chakkuwala. She had gone on to do the work in the Kothis. She used to return home everyday by 2 pm. As usual, when she did not return till 4.30 pm, then he and his wife Savita gone to search her. When they were crossing the river and was coming towards Doon school, they heard noise coming out of the shrubs. On this they went at the place of occurrence where they saw that Roshni Devi was lying naked and the accused appellant Vijay @ Bhoora having a 'khukhri' was also lying there. The accused appellant stood up immediately and told him by pointing 'khukhri' that if he would approach him then he would kill the complainant by that 'khukhri'. Thereafter he ran away. Upon raising alarm by him, many people of the locality gathered there, who caught hold the accused appellant along with the said 'khukhri' at about 5 pm on the same day. His mother -in -law told him that when she was returning home at about 2 pm, then near the same shrubs the accused appellant caught hold of her and forcibly took her inside the shrubs and forced her to undress herself by pointing 'khukhri' towards her and committed bad work with her and he forcibly made her to stay there till 4.45 pm. It was further averred that thereafter the accused appellant and Roshni Devi were brought to the police station with the help of the villagers. On the basis of this report, chick FIR Ex. Ka -8 was prepared by Constable Clerk Ved Prakash Sharma (PW6). He also made the necessary entries in the GD. Copy of GD is Ex. Ka -9. Investigation of this case was entrusted to SI Ramsurat Singh Yadav. Roshini Devi was medically examined by PW4 Dr. Reeta Dhawan25.10.1994 at 11.30 am, who also prepared the medical report Ex. Ka -4. Supplementary report Ex. Ka -5 was also prepared by the same Medical Officer. The injuries of Roshni Devi were examined by PW5 Dr. Manoj Bahukhandi on 26.10.1994 at 10.25 am, who also prepared the medical report Ex. Ka - 6 and supplementary report Ex. Ka -7. During the course of investigation, the I.O. prepared the fard of recovery of 'khukhri', that is Ex. Ka -3. He also prepared the site plan Ex. Ka -10 of the place of occurrence. He also took the underwear of the accused appellant in possession and prepared a fard Ex. Ka - 11. 'Salwar Kurta' and 'Dupatta' of the victim Roshini Devi were also taken in possession by the I.O. and fard Ex. Ka -12 was prepared. He recorded the statements of the witnesses during the course of investigation and after completing the investigation he filed the chargesheet under Section 376 IPC Ex. Ka -13 against the accused appellant. The I.O. also prepared the site plan Ex. Ka - 14 of the place of recovery of 'khukhri' and filed chargesheet Ex. Ka -15 under Section 25/4 of the Act against the accused appellant.

(3.) ON 7.2.1995, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun framed the charge against the appellant/accused under Sections 376 IPC. The charge was also framed against the accused appellant under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Act. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.