SURESHBHAI RAMANBHAI TADVI Vs. STATE 0F GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant -accused against the judgment and order dated 29.9.2010 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.4, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.110 of 2010, whereby the appellant -accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 452, 376 and 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - for offence under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code and, in default, the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and ordered to pay fine of Rs.500/ - for offence under Section 452 of IPC and in default he was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 506 (1) of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that: -

(3.) IT is the case of the appellant that the learned trial Judge has seriously erred in holding the present appellant guilty of the offences charged and hence the judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the present appellant is required to be released. It also the case of the appellant that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the fact that except for the prosecutrix there were no eyewitness to the offence. This fact gains significance in light of the fact that other independent witnesses had become hostile and their deposition could have been very important in light of the fact that the offence alleged to have been committed had occurred during the afternoon hours in a thickly populated locality. It is also the case of the appellant that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and the learned trial Judge appeared to have picked only those portions of the evidences which would lead to conviction of the present appellant without considering the total substance of the evidence. The prosecution has failed to come out with a specific case as to how the prosecutrix was confined.