SHANTIBHAI DHANAJI BHAGORA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeals arise out of the judgment and order rendered by the Sessions Court, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar, in Sessions Case No. 154/2004, on 31. 12. 2004, whereby the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 113/2005 was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was ordered to undergo R. I for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. Criminal Appeal No. 113/2005 is preferred by the original accused challenging his conviction. Criminal Appeal No. 1323/2006 is preferred by the State of Gujarat under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for enhancement of sentence awarded by the trial Court. Since these two appeals arise from the same judgment and order, they are heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that Jumiben, wife of Shakaraji Lalaji lodged an FIR before Vijaynagar Police Station on 26. 5. 2003, alleging that while she and her husband were returning home after attending a marriage, present accused Shantibhai Dhanaji Bhagora intercepted them and asked her to go with him, which she denied. He, therefore, started pulling her by catching her hand and when her husband objected to it, the accused gave him a kick blow, as a result of which, her husband fell down. At that time, the accused asked her husband to go away, or he would be done to death. Her husband, therefore, went away. The accused thereafter dragged her to a narrow lane in the field and committed rape on her against her will. On the basis of that FIR, offence was registered and investigated, and ultimately, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of learned J. M. F. C. Khedbrahma, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and Sessions Case No. 154/2004 came to be registered.

(3.) THE charge was framed against the accused person at Exh. 5, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, came to the conclusion that considering the evidence led by the prosecution, the charge against the appellant was proved and, therefore, recorded conviction and sentenced him, as stated hereinabove.