FIROZ @ BHURIYO YASINBHAI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has been found guilty of commission of offence under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for six months by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Surendranagar vide judgement and order dated 06.08.2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2011. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1212 of 2011.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the accused submitted that the trial court has committed serious error of law in convicting the accused on the basis of examination of only two witnesses being the victim and the Investigating Officer. She submitted that the prosecution has not examined independent witnesses like doctor, panchas, victim's parents or neighbours in the entire case. She submitted that the incident in question is alleged to have taken place in an open place and even then no independent witness has been examined. She submitted that though names of as many as 36 witnesses were mentioned in the charge-sheet only two witnesses being the prosecutrix and the PSI are examined.

(3.) Mr. HS Soni, learned APP appearing for respondent State supported the impugned judgement and order so far as it convicts the accused and submitted that the trial court has considered the ample evidence against the accused and convicted him of the charges levelled against him. However, Mr. Soni is not in a position to explain as why the prosecution did not examine other witnesses out of around 36 witnesses who were named in the charge sheet and other documents .