PREMSINH FULSINH SISODIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who was original accused in Special Case No. 6 of 2003, preferred this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Jamnagar ('learned trial Judge', for short) on dated 20. 10. 2003. The learned trial Judge recorded the conviction of the appellant - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code ('ipc', for short) and awarded sentence of R. I for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, S. I for 1 month for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and R. I for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, S. I for one month for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the IPC and R. I for 8 years and fine of Rs. 2500/- and in default of payment of fine, S. I for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the appellant - accused of the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('atrocities Act', for short ).

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that on dated 6. 12. 2002, at about 2 p. m. to 3 p. m. , Manjulaben, daughter of Kalubhai, aged about 15 years, was sleeping in her hut situated in the area of Andhashram in the city of Jamnagar, at that time, the accused came to her hut and giving inducement to her that he would give her a biscuit, kidnapped her and took her to a house, which was under construction and raped her. It is the prosecution case that prosecutrix Manjulaben belonged to scheduled tribe. Manjuben lodged the first information report before B-Division Police Station, Jamnagar. Police commenced the investigation and during the course of investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded. Prosecutrix Manjulaben and the accused were sent for medical examination. Required panchnamas were drawn in presence of the Panchas and after collection of the material evidence, chargesheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jamnagar. As the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of sessions, Jamnagar, which was registered as Special Criminal Case No. 6 of 2003.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge framed charge at Exh. 3 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC and under Section 3 (2) (5) of the Atrocities Act, to which the accused person did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. 1 The prosecution adduced its oral and documentary evidence. After the completion of the oral evidence, the learned trial Judge recorded further statement of accused under Section 313 of the Cr. PC, to which the accused denied generally all the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution. After appreciating the evidence on record and after considering arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides, the learned trial Judge rendered the impugned judgment and order and he was pleased to convict the appellant - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363. 366 and 376 of the IPC and imposed sentence as referred hereinabove.