GORE Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.5.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Fatehpur, in Special Trial No.37 of 2013 (State of UP vs. Gore @ Sushil) arising out of Case Crime No.347 of 2013 under Sections 376, 354, 452, 506 IPC & Section 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as 'the POCSO Act, 2012'), P.S.-Bindaki, District-Fatehpur, whereas the accused-appellant -Gore @ Sushil was awarded 3 years R.I. under Section 354 IPC, 5 years R.I. under Section 452 IPC, 3 years RI under Section 506 (2) IPC and 10 years RI under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, along with fine.

(2.) The brief facts of this appeal are that on 23.10.2013, the father of victim Ram Sanehi lodged an FIR at Police Station-Bindaki with averments that he resides in Delhi and does private service and he rarely comes at his native house at Fatehpur. At his residence, his wife resides with four daughters, one son and informant's aged mother. Gore son of late Pramod Kumar, who is of the same village often comes to the house of informant with intention he pressurize to make marital relationship with his elder daughter Kanchan, but when she refused to marry with him, he used to take his younger daughter, the victim for getting treatment at Kanpur as the victim was having white-spot on her leg. During the course of taking her to Kanpur for treatment, Gore committed rape with the victim and threatened her not to tell anybody, therefore, victim remained silent and Gore committed rape many times. Informant's elder daughter Kanchan alone ran away Mumbai and later on recovered from there.

(3.) Accused-Appellant Gore @ Sushil was charged by the learned trial court under Sections 376, 452, 354, 506 (2) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. On finding guilty, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 452, 354, 506 (2) IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Aggrieved with the judgment of learned trial court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.