YUSUF Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Yusuf Ansari, who has been convicted by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Agra in Session Trial No.616 of 2006, decided on 16.10.2007, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 366 and 376 I.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. and 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. The appellant was also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for both the offences and in default of payment of fine he was further sentenced to undergo imprisonment of three months.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that the informant Vibhu Singhal lodged an F.I.R. on 13.5.2006 at 8.30 a.m. at police station Chatta, Agra mentioning therein that in the night of 12/13.5.2006 Sri Prem Singh who was the Chaukidar of Dr. Rajpal Guest House informed him that one -Yusuf Ansari was staying in room No. 2 along with a minor girl. The Chaukidar-Prem Singh also informed him that the minor girl who was with the appellant told him that Yusuf Ansari had raped her. The informant handed over the appellant as well as the minor girl to the police along with his written complaint. It was on the basis of the written application of the informant that the case under Sections 363,366 and 376 I.P.C. was registered at the police station Chatta, disrict Agra. The investigation of the case was handed over to the Sub Inspector, Ramraj Singh, who interrogated the prosecutrix and other important witnesses and also visited the place of occurrence. The girl was sent to the hospital for medical examination. The written application of the informant is Ex.Ka-I and Preliminary Medico Legal Report is Ex. Ka-4. The supplementary medical report is Ex.Ka-5 and the report of the Chief Medical Officer is Ex. Ka.-8. The girl was also produced before the Magistrate for recoding her statement and thereupon her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is Ex. Ka.-3. After completion of investigation the police submitted the charge sheet against the appellant and after being committed to the court of Session, the learned trial Judge framed the charges against the appellant. The charge were read over and explained to the appellant to which he denied and claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution examined eight witnesses in order to prove its case. The learned trial Judge after considering the entire prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Sections 366 and 376 I.:P.C. and convicted him as referred to above.