MAHESH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 11.1.2006 an F.I.R. was lodged with the police of Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun at about 1.30 P.M. with the facts and allegations that the accused-revisionist Mahesh was living in a tenanted room in the neighbourhood of the complainant and on that date at about 12 in the noon he called the niece of the complainant to his room and tried to sodomise the girl, who was aged about only 3 years, at that time. When the girl cried for help, her mother and quite a number of other people, residing nearby, rushed to the room where the girl was confined and found that the accused-revisionist was trying to sodomise the girl. The people who had assembled there tried to apprehend the accused-revisionist but he managed to escape. The girl was rushed to the hospital where she was medically examined and thereafter she was referred to higher medical center for better treatment. During the course of investigation, the revisionist was arrested and committed to judicial custody. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun. A charge under Section 377 I.P.C. was framed against the revisionist. On conclusion of the trial, the applicant was found guilty and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun vide its judgment and order dated 12.6.2008 passed in Criminal Case No. 770 of 2006 convicted the revisionist and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and also imposed a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, a further period of detention of 2 months in jail was directed.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.6.2008, the accused-revisionist filed Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2008 before the learned Sessions Judge, Jalaun. The said criminal appeal was decided on 4.7.2008 by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun who dismissed the appeal after hearing both the parties. Thereforethe present revision has been filed.

(3.) I have gone through the records and both the judgments impugned. There are concurrent findings of the learned lower courts that accused-revisionist is guilty under Section 377 I.P.C. From the perusal of the records of the trial court it is evident that 3 witnesses of facts namely P.W. 1 Ram Singh, P.W. 2 Smt. Bhagwanti and P.W. 3 Km. Laxmi have been examined and they were also cross examined in detail by the accused-revisionist. I have examined the statements of these witnesses of facts and I do not find that there is any material contradiction or inner inconsistency in the statements of the witnesses of facts. From the perusal of the prosecution papers, it is evident that Exts. Ka-1 and Ka. 2 have been properly proved by P.W. 1. Chik F.I.R. Ext. Ka-3, extract of General Diary, Ext. Ka. 4, medical reports of the girl, Exts. Ka. 5 and Ka. 6, letter of the Medical Officer to the Pathologist, Ext. Ka. 7, report of the Pathologist Ext. Ka. 8, x-ray and medical report regarding age of the victim, Exts. Ka. 9 and Ka. 10, site plan, Ext. Ka. 11 and chargesheet Ext. Ka. 12 have been held to be proved. Learned counsel for the accused-revisionist had dispensed with the formal proof of these documents under the provision of Section 294 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused-revisionist that the prosecution papers were not proved, does not hold water.