KANUBHAI DHIRUBHAI RAJPUT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 86/2006, whereby the accused has been convicted (1) for the offence under Section 363 and the sentence has been imposed of seven (7) years R.I., with the fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) (and in default of fine of Rs. 1,000, one (I) year R.I.); (2) for the offence under Section 354 and the sentence has been imposed of one (1) year R.I.; (3) for the offence under Section 323 and the sentence has been imposed of one (1) year R.I., and (4) for the offence under Section 376 of IPC and the sentence has been imposed of life imprisonment with the fine of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) plus Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only), total Rs.20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) (and in default of fine of Rs.20,000. two years R.I.). It is also ordered that the amount of Rs. 20,000 be given as compensation to both the girls.

(2.) The short facts are that Iqbal Alibhai Pirzada PWI filed the complaint with the Police Inspector, Joravar Nagar, stating that he has three daughters, out of which, one was Kausar, aged 7 years, second was Rukaiya, aged 4 years and third was Fiza, aged 2 years. When he was at his residence, his elder daughter Kausar was playing in the street and between 1.30 p.m., to 2.30 p.m., when he did not find Kausar outside his house, he enquired about her and he found that near Ratanpar Slop, near Sagar Hotel, his daughter was standing and when he saw her, he enquired from her as to where she was, then she said that she was playing in the street and at that time; one man had come and shown the currency of Rs. 10 and caught hold of her hand and took her to fencing nearby Gin. She also stated that her clothes were taken out and that person molested with the finger and thereafter the clothes were put on. The complainant then conveyed the aforesaid to his family and on further enquiry, it was found that he was Kanubhai Dhirubhai Rajput accused herein. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

(3.) The aforesaid complaint was investigated by the Police and ultimately charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Case No. 86 of 2006. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 21 witnesses, the details of whom are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 4 of the judgment. The prosecution also produced the documentary evidence of 42 documents, the details of which are mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge at the very-paragraph 4. The learned Sessions Judge thereafter recorded the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein the accused denied the offences and in his further statement, he stated that when he was going on road, the complainant and his family members had beaten him and he was carried to 'the police station and the complaint was filed, but he is innocent.