STATE OF U P Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and order dated 12-10-2000, passed by XII Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly in S.T. No. 788 of 1995 State v. Amar Singh, acquitting accused respondent Amar Singh of the charge under S. 376 IPC, the appellant State has appealed to this Court.

(2.) THE prosecution allegations were that on 17-12-1994 at about 3 p.m. Km. Roopwati daughter of the informant Tej Ram s/o Pooran Lal Jatav r/o village Mansoor Ganj, P.S. Shahi, district Bareilly had gone to mow the grass in the field. Then accused Amar Singh came out from behind from his sugar cane field caught hold of her and committed rape on her. When she cried he inserted a cloth in her mouth and ran away. Shanti Devi PW 2, wife of Som Pal, the younger brother of informant, was passing through nearby witnessed Amar Singh running away from the place of incident after committing the crime and she brought the victim to her house and informed about the incident to the informant, who brought the victim to the Police Station Shahi 6 Km. away from his house and lodged the FIR on 18-12-1994 at 9.15 a.m. The I.O. PW 6 Chandra Pal Singh, Inspector was not present at that time. Head Constable Mahendra Pal Singh (not examined by the prosecution as witness) prepared the Chik Ex. Ka 9 and registered the case through GD Ka 10. The Investigating Officer PW 6 Chandra Pal Singh after his return to the Police Station started the investigation, recorded the statement of the informant Roopwati PW 2 and Shanti Devi PW 4. He made the spot inspection (Ex. Ka 5) and also recorded the statements of other persons and then arrested the accused Amar Singh. He also seized the cloth (Salwar) of the victim (Ex. Ka 6) and sent it for Pathological Examination. The Pathological examination report dated 21-2-1995 of the cloth of the victim was Ex. Ka 8, which disclosed that it was stained with human blood and semen.

(3.) THE accused under S.313 Cr. P.C. denied the incriminating circumstances of the prosecution evidence and took the defence that the victim was his childhood friend and because nuptial knot between them was negated by his father, therefore, he had been falsely implicated in the case. In defence he had examined DW 1 Rameshwar s/o Nanhey Lal.