S Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anurag Sharma, learned panel counsel, appointed for the High Court Legal Aid Service and Sri N.K. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) The present Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgement and order dtd. 21/10/2002 passed by Ms. Vijay Laxmi, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Meerut in S.T. No.833 of 2001 (State of U.P. vs. Satnam Singh), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Ss. 376 (1), 328 and 506 I.P.C. For offence under Sec. 376 (1), the appellant has been awarded rigorous life sentence together with fine of Rs.50,000.00. For the offence under Sec. 328, he has been sentenced for three years simple imprisonment and for offence under Sec. 506, he has been sentenced for six months. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo six months further imprisonment. Of the fine awarded, Rs.45,000.00 has been directed to be paid to the victim through her mother. Against that sentence awarded, the appellant remained confined for about 22 years.

(3.) The Sessions Trial emerged on the F.I.R. dtd. 30/9/2001, lodged by 'H', the mother of the victim 'X'. She is PW-1 at the trial. The F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No.249 of 2001. It is Ex.Ka-7 at the trial. It arose from the Written Report submitted by 'H' dtd. 30/9/2001. It is Ex.Ka-1 at the trial. The scribe of the F.I.R. was one Pawan Kumar (not examined at the trial). The F.I.R. narrates, 'H' was living with her husband (the appellant), the victim 'X' aged about 14 years and her son 'J' (not examined at the trial). On 20/8/2001, the appellant administered some intoxicating substance to 'H' and 'X' during night and thereafter committed rape on 'X'. He also threatened 'X' not to tell anyone about that occurrence. Thereafter, the appellant committed repeated rape on 'X'. Last on 28/9/2001, at about 2:30 a.m., the appellant committed rape on 'X'. 'H' caught him at that time. The appellant prayed for mercy. On her query, the victim disclosed to 'H' that the appellant had earlier committed rape on her on many occasions. Such facts were disclosed by 'H' to her neighbours. On such development, the appellant became belligerent and claimed that he was the father of 'X' and he may do with her, as he pleases. That filled others with fear. They backed out. Thereafter, the appellant continued to threaten 'H'. For that reason, the F.I.R. narrated, she lodged the F.I.R. with some delay.