RAJU AND ANR. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail of the accused appellants and perused the trial court's record.

(2.) THIS appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 28, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 322 of 2004 Crime No. 155 of 2002: State v. Raju and Anr. under Sections 376, 354, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x)(xi)(xii) SC/ST Act, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the accused -appellants guilty under Section 376(G) I.P.C. and has convicted and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - with default stipulation.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants further submits that on the written report of the prosecutrix, police of police station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki registered a case under Sections 354, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x)(xi)(xii) SC/ST Act against the accused. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer on 02.07.2002 even she did not level any allegation against the accused that they had committed rape on her. The subsequent statement of prosecutrix was recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and her statement was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 05.08.2002. She in her subsequent statements has levelled charge of committing rape against the accused. The story narrated by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is different from the story narrated by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Accused appellants and the prosecutrix belong to the same village. She on account of enmity has falsely implicated the accused appellants just to get an amount of Rs. 25,000/ - as compensation from the Government. The prosecution story as disclosed by the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not consistent with her statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The trial court without proper appreciation of evidence has held the accused appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 376(G) I.P.C. In fact, the evidence led by the prosecution is not reliable. The accused -appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. Therefore, they deserve to be released on bail.