SURJEET @ JITTE Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by Surjeet alias Jitte, under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2011, passed by the then learned District & Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Session Trial No.589 of 2010, State vs. Surjeet @ Jitte, Crime No.522 of 2010, under Section 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Naseerabad, Raebareli (Present District-C.S.M. Nagar) convicting the appellant under Section 376 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and with fine of Rs.500/-.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that a written report was given on 19.06.2010 by the complainant, prosecutrix Kiran, against Surjeet @ Jitte, Durga, Anil Kumar and Rajulle of Police Station-Naseerabad, district-Raebareli with the allegation that in the night of 17.06.2010 she went to see Nautanki in her village. In the night of 17/18.06.2010, at about 12.00 night she went to ease herself, all of sudden all the accused persons came there and by closing her mouth committed rape one by one and left her threatening to kill her if she said anything to anybody about the incident. The First Information Report (in short FIR) under Section 376/ 506 of I.P.C. was registered at Crime No.522 of 2010 against Surjeet @ Jitte, Durga, Anil Kumar and Rajulle. The prosecutrix was medically examined. The investigation was started. The cloths of prosecutrix Kiran were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and Fard was prepared and cloths were sent for chemical analysis. After investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against Surjeet @ Jitte only under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. The case was committed to Court of Sessions on 23.09.2010. The learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli framed charges against the accused-appellant Surjeet @ Jitte under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C.. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) The prosecution in support of his case examined victim Kiran as PW-1, her mother Sumitra as PW-2 and her father Ram Prasad as PW-3. All the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution version at all. Genuineness of all other documents were accepted by the defence. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which appellant denied the allegations.