SANJAYKUMAR NANAKPRABHU SAROJ Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises against the judgment and order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 3, Ahmedabad in Sessions Case No. 102/2005, whereby, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused (appellant herein) for the offence under section 376 of IPC and imposed punishment of 10 years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 5000/- and further imprisonment of six months in default of payment of fine. The learned Sessions Judge has also convicted the appellant for the offence under section 363 of IPC and imposed punishment of five years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 2000/- and further imprisonment of six months in default of payment of fine. The learned Sessions Judge has also convicted the appellant for the offence under section 366 of IPC and imposed punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 3000/- and further imprisonment of six months in default of payment of fine. All the sentences were ordered to undergo concurrently.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, a complaint was filed by the victim that she was doing the work of cleaning in the bungalows, and at that time, she had come in contact with Sanjay Bhaiya and prior to two months, she had sexual intercourse with Sanjay Bhaiya. Thereafter, she was called at another place and they had stayed together and had physical relations by committing sexual intercourse. The police had investigated the complaint and thereafter charge-sheet was filed and the matter was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge. The evidence was led on behalf of the prosecution comprising of 13 witnesses and 23 documentary evidence, which have been narrated by the learned Sessions Judge at para-4 of the impugned judgment. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter recorded further statement of the accused, in which, he stated that he is innocent and he has not committed any crime. The learned Sessions Judge has, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides, found the appellant guilty for the offence under sections 376, 363 and 366 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter heard the matter for sentence. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.

(3.) We have heard Mr. Brijesh Limbachiya for Mr. Mitesh R. Amin for the appellant and Mr. K.L. Pandya learned APP for the State.