RAM SURSH Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 18.09.2009 passed by Additional Session Judge (F.C.T.-II) Ambedkar Nagar in Session Trial No. 25/2008, sentencing the appellants to ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2g) IPC; in addition to sentence, a fine of Rs. 5,000/- has also been imposed on each appellant and in default, they shall undergo for further six months imprisonment.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the appeal are that Parshuram lodged a report at Police Station Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar alleging that he is a scheduled caste and permanent resident of Village Raipur, PS Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar; that on 01.10.2007, his grand-daughter was sleeping at the residence of his close relation Ram Kumar son of Sri Ram Samujh in the courtyard on a cot; that besides her, the entire family as well as Ram Kumar were also sleeping; that in the midnight, the appellants i.e. Ram Suresh and Mahesh lifted the cot on which his grand daughter was sleeping and took it towards southern side of the tube-well of Hari Lal Yadav and raped his grand-daughter; that when his grand-daughter was coming back to her house by scramming and weeping; that the complainant along with Raja Ram, Vidhya and Smt. Geina, etc. ran for her rescue; they saw in the light of torch and moon light, the appellants running away from the scene; that the complainant could not immediately reach the police station because of night and immediately thereafter he has lodged an FIR. The prosecution case is that the FIR could be lodged at about 8.50 a.m. on 02.10.2007, which was numbered as Crime Case No. 207/2007 under Section 376 IPC. The investigating officer conducted the investigation and after preparing the site plan etc. and after recording the statements of witnesses and completing due formalities regarding the prosecutrix's medical examination etc., submitted charge-sheet against the appellants under Section 376 (2g) IPC. The case was committed to Session's Court where it proceeded and charges were framed. The appellants denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution produced the complainant (PW-1) to prove the FIR; PW-2 the prosecutrix; PW-3 Rajaram to prove the incident; PW-4 Dr. A.C. Tiwari, who conducted the X-ray regarding the age of the prosecutrix; PW-5 Dr. Meera Verma, who conducted the internal examination of the prosecutrix; and PW-6 Investigating Officer, who proved the formal documents. Other formal witnesses PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 were also examined.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid judgment and order, the instant appeal has been preferred.