MOHD YASEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. Mohd. Yaseen has filed this appeal against the order dated 6-6-1983 of Sri P. P. Gupta, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barabanki, passed in S. T. No. 138 of 1982. The learned Trial Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 363 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo two years R. I.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, in that the appellant, Mohd. Yaseen had taken a contract for construction of a culvert in village Darveshpur in the year 1980. He used to sleep in a 'chappar' outside the house of Smt. Sundara, the victim of the offence. He stayed there for nearly 3 months. THE father of Smt. Sundara was in service out of station and used to reside at the place of his posting while Smt. Sundara was living all alone in the village with the mother and brother. Her brother was a lad of 17 years of age. On the fateful night, the appellant entered into her house and committed rape with her. He also threatened Smt. Sundara with dire consequences in case she made any disclosure of the rape to anyone. THEre after the appellant started perpetrating rape on her on very 4th day and when smt. Sundara became pregnant she asked the appellant to get an abortion arranged. THE appellant agreed to the suggestion made by Smt. Sundara. At the agreed date and time the appellant waited for Smt. Sundara outside the village and Smt. Sundara joined him there. She also took away ornaments and Rs. 200/- cash with her from her house. Both of them set out for Lucknow for an abortion. THEy came to Barabanki by bus and thereafter went to Dewa. On the way they came across two police constables. Smt. Sundara cried out for help. THE police constables overpowered the appellant. THEy took the appellant and Smt. Sundara to the Police Station where Smt. Sundara lodged the first information report. THEreafter the statement of Smt. Sundara was recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr. P. C.

(3.) THE learned Sessions Judge partly believed the prosecution story and partly dis believed the prosecution case. He convicted the appellant under Section 363 I. P. C. but acquitted him of the charges under Sections 376 and 366 I. P. C.