SUNEEL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 4 in Sessions Trial No. 898 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 1338 of 2010 Police Station Sursa, District Hardoi whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376/511 I.P.C., and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and also with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - with default stipulation of two months additional imprisonment.

(2.) ACCORDING to the F.I.R., the case of the prosecution was that complainant Raj Kumar lodgd an F.I.R. at Police Station Sursa on 26.8.2010 at 12:30 p.m. alleging therein that on 22.8.2010 his daughter (hereinafter referred as the victim) had gone to attend the call of nature in the cattle yard, which was at a distance of about 100 meters from his house and after attending the call of nature, while she was coming back at about 9:15 p.m., then the appellant reached there and after closing her mouth with his hand forcibly took her to the vacant land situated in the vicinity, across the Khadanza road and after breaking the string of her Salwar, made an attempt to commit rape with her. The victim raised alarm. On her alarm, the persons living in the vicinity and moving on the Khadanza road, namely Chandra Mani and Vishram and also the complainant and his wife reached there. Seeing these persons, the appellant ran away from there. The complainant immediately gave information of this incident to the police station on mobile phone and after waiting for few days when no action was taken by the police on such information, then ultimately he lodged the F.I.R. of this case on 26.8.2010. The Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence on the same day. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed by the police on the same day.

(3.) THE case of the defence was that the appellant was the candidate in the election of Village Pradhan. One Shri Pal of village Gudhiyari, was also contesting election against him. The complainant was helping Shri Pal in his election. In order to prevent the appellant from contesting the election, by use of his political influence on the police, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It was further submitted that the brother of the appellant named Munendra and his nephew Neeraj were picked up from their house on 22.8.2010 and they were asked to ensure the presence of the appellant at the police station on the pretext that they shall be released only thereafter. Ultimately the appellant was arrested on 26.8.2010 and this false case has been concocted against him. It has further been submitted that family members of the appellant had given an information of this defence version on 25.8.2010 through FAX to Director General of Police.