FARJITBHAI @ FIROJBHAI INDUBHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was original accused in Sessions Case No. 132/2003, preferred this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order delivered by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Bharuch at Rajpipla [for short 'the Ld. Trial Judge'] on 12/1/2004. The appellant accused came to be convicted by the Ld. Trial Judge for the offences punishable under sections 376 and 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment [RI] for 10 years and fine of Rs.20,000/=, in default to undergo RI for 3 years and RI for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/=, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months respectively. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The Ld. Trial Judge further directed that out of the amount of fine of Rs.20,000/=, Rs.15,000/= be paid to prosecutrix Sonalben by way of compensation.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the case of prosecution are as under : -

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. NK Majmudar for the appellant accused submitted that the Ld. Trial Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved its case against the accused. It is submitted that initially in her FIR Sonal specifically stated that no rape was committed by the accused and only she alleged the offence punishable under section 354 of the IPC. Thereafter, for reasons best known to investigating police agency, her further statement came to be recorded and in her further statement before police, she alleged the offence of rape involving the accused. That thus from the very inception, the case of the prosecution is doubtful. That even the so called FIR was lodged after suspicious delay of about 8 days. The delay is not at all explained. It is further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove exact age of Sonal at the time of alleged incident. That there was serious dispute regarding the property between the accused and the father of the prosecutrix and in connection with said property dispute, criminal cases and chapter cases were filed. Thus, there was strong motive to involve the accused in connection with any serious crime. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and order of conviction recorded by the Ld. Trial Judge be set aside and the appellant - accused be acquitted by allowing this appeal.