BHARAT Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this criminal appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order recorded by Additional Session Judge (Ex Cadre), Court No.3, Sitapur in S.T. No.130/2011, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years along with a fine of Rs.2,000/ - under Section 363 IPC; seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.3,000/ - under Section 366 IPC and ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine Rs.5,000/ - under Section 376(2)(g) IPC. It was further directed that out of the amount of fine, a sum of Rs.5,000/ - shall be paid to the victim. During the pendency of the appeal, the prayer for bail of the appellant has already been declined by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2013.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that the informant gave a written application on 01.11.2007 stating therein that on 21.03.2007, his daughter, aged about 14 years had gone to attend the call of nature at 2.00 PM towards west of the village. It was further stated that the appellant and one Shiv Mangal Singh alias Babloo Singh enticed away her daughter from there. On 26.03.2007, one Pradeep Singh son of the sister of Babloo Singh, left the girl at her house and on being asked, she told that the present appellant as well as Shiv Mangal Singh alias Babloo Singh both had committed rape on her. On the basis of the written application given by the informant, a case was registered against both the persons but during investigation Shiv Mangal Singh alias Babloo Singh could not be arrested. The police found sufficient evidence against the present appellant and submitted charge -sheet against him. During investigation, the statement of the prosecutrix as well as other witnesses were recorded and the prosecutrix was subjected to medical examination. She was also produced before the Magistrate for recording of her statement under Section 164 CrPC.

(3.) DURING the course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and on appraisal of evidence, learned trial court found the charges framed against the appellant fully proved and convicted him, as aforesaid.