NEEL KANTH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 16.4.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No. 3, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 594 of 2008, under Sections 376/511 I.P.C., Police Station Haiderabad, District Lakhimpur Kheri whereby appellant Neel Kanth was convicted for the offence under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.

(2.) ACCORDING to the version of F.I.R., the incident had taken place on 9.5.2008 in the night about 9:00 p.m. when the minor daughter of complainant, aged about 16 years, had gone to ease herself towards south of the village. The appellant, who was present there, caught hold of the victim, fell her on the ground and broke the string of her Salwar and made an attempt to commit rape. Hearing the noise of the victim Surendra and other persons reached there then the appellant ran away from there. The complainant was not in his house as he had gone to his relations. When he came back to his house then he got the information of this incident. Since the victim had not received any injury, therefore, it was mentioned by the complainant in his F.I.R. that he does not want to get the victim medically examined. The F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 12.5.2008 at 11:20 a.m. The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet on the next day.

(3.) THE case of the defence was that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. The complainant, who happens to be Chaukidar in the police station got a false F.I.R. registered against him. During cross -examination a suggestion was given to the witnesses that the complainant wanted to drain out the waste water of his house through the courtyard of the appellant, which was not being permitted by the family of the appellant due to which he has been falsely implicated. It has also been suggested to the witnesses that one Kallu, who happens to be the son of Mool Chand alias Putai had kidnapped the other daughter of the complainant. Subsequently she committed suicide. The said Mool Chand happens to be Dau of the present appellant and because of that enmity present appellant has been falsely implicated.