RAM PRAKASH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the Lower Court Record.

(2.) UNDER challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 28.02.2013, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.34, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.88 of 2012, whereby the Trial Court has convicted the appellant Ram Prakash Yadav for the offence under Sections 363/366/376/342 I.P.C. He was sentenced for the offence under Section 363 I.P.C. with rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and also with fine of Rs.1,000/ -, with default stipulation of 6 months' rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 years and also with fine of Rs.1,000/ - with default stipulation of one year rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 years and also with fine of Rs.2,000/ -, with default stipulation of one year's rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C. he was sentenced with one year's rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that out of the recovered amount of fine, Rs.2,000/ - shall be paid to the victim of the offence.

(3.) IN brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant appeal are that Smt. Dhanraja, mother of the victim lodged an F.I.R. of this case on 9.5.2011 at Police Station Kotwali Haidergarh, wherein she has alleged that on 5.5.2011 there was marriage of one Gayadin Pal in the village. Her daughter (hereinafter referred to as victim) aged about 16 years had gone to see Dwarchar ceremony. In that marriage Ram Prakash Yadav was also present. In the intervening night at about 12.00 a.m. he enticed away the victim in a Maruti car. The complainant side made search of the victim and when they could not succeed then this F.I.R. was lodged on 9.5.2011 which was registered at 4.00 p.m. During investigation the victim was recovered on 9.9.2011. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded wherein she had stated that after seeing Dwarchar ceremony she was going to have dinner at the house of Gayadin Pal then the appellant met her on the way and told her that her mother has met with an accident and told her that her mother is in Tata Magic vehicle. When she went to look into the Tata Magic vehicle, then Ram Prakash Yadav pushed her inside the said vehicle and closed her mouth and asked the driver to drive the vehicle. After 2 -3 kilometers, she became unconscious and she regained her consciousness after 2 -3 days. She found herself closed in a room and the appellant Ram Prakash Yadav committed rape with her. When she made an effort to raise alarm then Ram Prakash Yadav threatened her to face dire consequences. The appellant Ram Prakash Yadav kept her for a period of four months in Ghaziabad and several times rape was committed with her.