DHEERAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Sec­tion 374 of the Code of Criminal Pro­cedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judg­ment and order dated 29-07-2000, passed in Sessions trial No. 92 of 1999, by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, whereby appellant Dheeraj Singh has been convicted un­der Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo im­prisonment for life.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned Amicus Curiae for the appel­lant and Mr. Nandan Arya, Asstt. Gov­ernment Advocate for the State and perused the lower court record.

(3.) THE Magistrate, on receipt of charge sheet, after giving necessary copies to the accused, as required un­der Section 207 of Cr.P.C., commit­ted the case to the court of Sessions, for trial. Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, after hearing on 29-01-2000, framed charge of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. against the accused Dheeraj Singh, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On this, the prosecution got examined P.W.I Basanti Devi (com­plainant); P.W.2 Guddi [aged 13 years (victim)]; P.W.3 Dr. M. Purohit (Medi­cal Officer who medically examined the victim); P.W.4 Dr. Arun Kumar (the Radiologist, who after X-ray sub­mitted his report Ext. A-6) and P.W. 5 Mansa Ram (Naib Tehsildar, who in­vestigated the crime). The oral and documentary evidence was put to the accused/appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in reply to which he alleged the same to be false. At the end, he submitted that his wife and mother-in-law are inimical to him and they have got him implicated falsely. However, no evidence in defence was adduced. After hearing the parties, the trial court found accused/appellant Dheeraj Singh guilty of charge of offence pun­ishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. After hearing on sentence, the convict was sentenced to undergo imprison­ment for life. Aggrieved by said judg­ment and order dated 29-07-2000, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Sessions Trials No. 92 of 1999, the convict preferred this appeal from jail. Since, the appellant was not represented through any coun­sel, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate, was appointed Amicus Curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant.