MANOJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT criminal appeal has been filed by Manoj, son of Pirthi against the judgment and order dated 19.8.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No.110 of 2009, Case Crime no.389 of 2008, under Sections 376 (2) (g), 506 IPC, Police Station Laharpur, District Sitapur, convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC for ten years' imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000; and under Section 506 IPC for two years' imprisonment. In default of payment of fine, the appellant to undergo further imprisonment of six months.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that the victim had gone to ease herself in field of Vijay on 12.5.2008 at about 7:00 P.M. where the appellant Manoj and co -accused Dubari were hiding themselves in sugar cane field. As soon as the victim arose, after attending the call of nature, they caught hold of her and gagged her thrusting a cloth in her mouth and committed rape on her. On alarm being raised by the victim the accused persons fled away threatening her with dire consequences. The victim moved application (Ext. 'Ka' -1) to the Superintendent of Police, Sitapur on 14.5.2008, who ordered for registration. The 'Chik' F.I.R.(Ext. 'Ka' -8) was lodged at the Police Station; the entry of the same(Ext. 'Ka' -3) was made in the G.D. The victim was sent for medical examination to District Women Hospital, Sitapur on 15.5.2008 and was examined at 10.00 A.M. Ext. 'Ka' -4 is the medical report; the concerned medical officer referred her for medical examination regarding her age; the vaginal smear was taken and sent for examination to District Hospital, Sitapur. X -ray report (Ext. 'Ka' -2) and X -ray plate (Ext. -1) were prepared. Supplementary medical report (Ext. 'Ka' -5) was also prepared. The matter was investigated by the Investigating Officer, S.I. Sri Shiv Kumar Rawat, who after completing the investigation filed charge sheet (Ext. 'Ka' -7) under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Section 376(2)(g), 506 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to prove its case examined P.W. 1 complainant/victim; PW -2, Dr. R.A.L. Gupta as PW -3, Head Constable 59 Omkar Nath Pandey, PW -4 Dr. Madhur Sinha; PW -5 Shiv Kumar Rawat, Sub Inspector and PW -6 Constable 190 Mrityunjay Singh. The prosecution also proved written report (Ext. 'Ka' -1); X -ray report(Ext. 'Ka' -2); copy of G.D. (Ext. 'Ka' -3); Medical Examination Report of victim(Ext. 'Ka' -4); Supplementary Medical Report (Ext. 'Ka' -5); site plan(Ext. 'Ka' -6);charge -sheet(Ext. 'Ka' -7); 'Chik' F.I.R. (Ext. 'Ka' -8) and X -ray Plate(Ext. -1). Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied their involvement in the crime but did not adduce any evidence in their defence. They stated that the victim was seen in compromising position with Sant Kumar by their wives and they had threatened to expose her, as such, the victim and her family members falsely implicated them.