DIPAK BABULAL BAROT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging judgment and order of conviction dated 11.08.2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1998 by learned Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Morbi, whereby for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC" for short), the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for a period of one month was imposed, whereas for the offence punishable under Section 506(2) of IPC, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for a period of one month was imposed. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently giving the benefit of set off to the appellants.

(2.) As per the prosecution version, when the prosecutrix was at her home on 01.08.1997, during noon hours, accused No.2 - Dilip Maghjibhai Barot came at her house and asked her to take a letter of her father from his house. Therefore, the prosecutrix followed the accused at his house and when she reached and entered the house, accused No.1 - Dipak Babulal Barot came out from the bathroom and locked the door. Thereafter, the said accused - Dipak gagged her mouth and she was made to lie on the cot and the accused - Dilip committed forcible sexual intercourse against her will and wish. Thereafter, the accused - Dilip gagged her mouth and the accused - Dipak committed forcible sexual intercourse over her. The prosecutrix was threatened not to say about the said incident to anybody. Thereby, the appellants accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(g) and 506 of IPC.

(3.) Investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was sessions triable, the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.