MAHESH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Neelam Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, and Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA for the State respondent.

(2.) This criminal appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 30.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Unnao in case crime no.142 of 2008, Police Station Vihar, District Unnao (State v. Mahesh Gupta) in Sessions Trial No.433 of 2008 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and was directed to undergo 10 years RI, and also directed to pay fine of Rs.2000/-. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo three months additional RI.

(3.) As per factual matrix of the case, daughter of Ramesh Chandra Sharma, the victim, aged about 18 years, committed suicide by consuming poison on 12.2.2008. Information regarding committing suicide was given to police out post concerned. When a note of dying declaration was found in the papers of the deceased, FIR was lodged in Police Out Post Bhagwant Nagar, Police Station Bihar, District Unnao on 14.2.2008 by the father of deceased, at about 12.10 noon. It was mentioned in the FIR tat when inquired of the reqsons of suicide he came to know that on 11.2.2008, his daughter - the victim was alone in her house. In the meantime, Mahesh Gupta, son of Mahadev Gupta entered into her house and committed rape. The victim has informed her mother on the same day in the evening, but her mother did not inform him due to fear. The victim has committed sucide on 12.2.2008 by consuming poisonous substance. Along with this FIR, suicide note written by the victim/deceased was annexed. On this, a case under Section 376, 306 IPC was registered. During investigation suicide note was taken by the Investigating Officer. A fard Ex.Ka.2 was prepared. In order to ascertain that the hand writing on the suicide note is of the victim, a copy containing the hand writing of the victim was also taken by the Investigating Officer, and a fard Ex.Ka.4 was prepared. Post mortem was conducted. Viscera was preserved. After investigation charge under Sections 376, 306 IPC was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.