STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SURESHBHAI RAMANBHAI NAYKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Criminal Appeals are preferred against judgment and order dated 30.6.2014 passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Navsari, in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2013. By the said judgment, accused is convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and ordered him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and, in default, he was ordered to undergo further imprisonment for six months; while the accused was acquitted of the charge of offence under Section 506 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2015, while Criminal Appeal No. 1398 of 2014 is preferred by the State for enhancement of sentence imposed by the impugned judgment upon the accused.

(2.) AS both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment rendered in connection with the same incident and the evidence is also common in these appeals, the same are taken up for hearing together.

(3.) MR . Gajendra Baghel, learned advocate for the appellant -accused in Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2015 has taken us through the evidence and submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant. He also submitted that the doctor has not taken the history of the victim and just referred to the police yadi and prepared medical papers. Therefore, the medical evidence is not reliable and the accused is wrongly convicted. He also submitted that the medical evidence do not suggest that there was any injury on the private part of the victim and, therefore, the case of the prosecution is doubtful. He also submitted that there is delay in giving the complaint which is not explained. He also submitted that so far as another case is concerned, no FIR is filed and the second victim has directly came in the Court, therefore, it is a case of implication of the accused in the offence. He, therefore, submitted that the appellant could not have been held guilty of the offence. In view of these submissions, he prayed that this appeal may be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment.