STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KISHORBHAI JAYNTIBHAI TRIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 1315 of 2012 is preferred by the appellantState of Gujarat under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of sentence in Sessions Case No. 202 of 2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar on 20.6.2012 to modify the impugned judgment and order of sentence, so far as offence under Sections 511 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned and to enhance the sentence under the above mentioned sections to its maximum. Whereas, Criminal Appeal No. 855 of 2012, preferred by the appellantoriginal accused of Sessions Case No. 202 of 2009 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, dated 20.6.2012, whereby the appellantoriginal accused is held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 354 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.3,000/, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and for the offence punishable under Section 511 of the IPC, the accused is ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs.5,000/, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Whereas, for the offences under Sections 376,377,452, and 506(2) of the IPC, the respondentaccused has been acquitted.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, reads thus:

(3.) A complaint in respect of the aforesaid incident was lodged by the mother of the victim before the Police Sub Inspector, Jesar Police Station. Necessary investigation was done and the accused came to be arrested. At the end of the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused before the trial Court. However, since it was a sessions triable offence, the case was committed to Sessions Court and ultimately trial was initiated and charge came to be framed. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried.