PREM NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge III, Etawah, in Session Trial No.247 of 2008, decided on 6.1.2011, the appellant has filed this appeal, whereby the appellant Prem Nath Singh was convicted, under Section 376 I.P.C. The period of sentence of the appellant is seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-has also been imposed on him. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is, that the husband of the prosecutrix namely Vinod Kumar was an employee of Railway department. The dispute with regard to payment of bonus was pending in the department, and on 4.11.1993, the payment of bonus was to be made to the husband of the prosecutrix but some of the officials of the Railway department created hindrance in the payment of bonus. This fact was disclosed by the husband of the prosecutrix to her. It is stated that on 4.11.1993 at about 8 P.M. when the husband of the prosecutrix was out, the appellant Prem Nath Singh sent his servant and called upon the prosecutrix. When the prosecutrix reached the house of the appellant at about 9 P.M., he told her to sit in a room. After sometime, the appellant came into the room in inebriated condition and asked the prosecutrix to stay at night with him. When the prosecutrix did not agree to the indecent proposal of the appellant, he took out a revolver from his pocket and raped her at gun point. It was further stated in the first information report that as a result of forceful commission of rape, the blouse and petticoat of the prosecutrix also got torn. Since the appellant had threatened her not to cry, she could not raise any alarm. After the commission of crime, when the prosecutrix came out the house of the appellant, three persons namely, Pappu, Angad and Ram Kumar met her and the prosecutrix told them about the occurrence. It is stated that all these three persons escorted the prosecutrix to her house, where she narrated the entire occurrence to her husband. When the prosecutrix went to lodge the first information report, the appellant was found standing near police station with his colleagues. The prosecutrix, therefore, went directly to the Senior Superintendent of Police and gave him a written application which is Exhibit Ka-1. On the basis of the order passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, a case under Section 376 I.P.C was registered against the appellant. The torn clothes of the prosecutrix were also taken into custody by the police and a memo thereof Exhibit Ka-5 was prepared. After the investigation, the police submitted final report. However, it appears that the learned Magistrate did not accept the final report and took cognizance of the offence on the basis of evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Consequent upon taking cognizance by the Magistrate, the appellant was summoned who appeared after several years. The appellant surrendered before the Court. The appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge under Section 376 I.P.C was framed against him. The charge was read over and explained to him but he denied the charge and claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution examined four witnesses in order to prove its case. The learned trial court after going through the entire prosecution evidence came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C and convicted him as mentioned here-in-above.