RAM BHAWAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

(2.) CHALLENGE in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dated 24.10.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No. 106 of 2000, arising out of case crime no. 338 of 1999, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 363 and 376 IPC and for the offence under Section 363 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also fine of Rs. 500/ - with default stipulation of six months additional imprisonment and for the offence under Section 376 IPC he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also with fine of Rs. 1,000/ - with default stipulation of one year's rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) BRIEF facts, necessary for the instant appeal are that on 22.10.1999 in the morning the minor daughter of the complainant aged about 13 years had gone to her school to appear in the examination. When she did not come back, till late in the evening, then, the complainant made an enquiry about her whereabouts. On enquiry, it revealed that she has been enticed away by the present appellant Ram Bhawan and three co -accused persons. Information of this incident was given by the complainant on 26.10.1999. On 28.10.1999, the victim was recovered by the Police and its recovery memo was prepared. Her petticoat was taken into custody. Victim was referred for medical examination. However, the father of the victim refused for her internal examination. Hence, only medical examination of her person was conducted and no injury was found on her body. She was referred for X -ray for determination of her age. On the basis of X -ray report, supplementary report was prepared and no definite opinion about rape was given. Her age was reported to be between 14 -15 years. After completing the investigation, the Police submitted charge sheet against all the five accused persons. By the impugned judgment, only the present appellant was convicted and remaining accused persons were acquitted. It is an admitted fact that no appeal against the said acquittal of other persons has been preferred on behalf of the State.