LAWS(ALL)-2006-10-86

SOHANBIR Vs. STATE

Decided On October 18, 2006
SOHANBIR Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity hereinaf ter Cr. PC.), is directed against the judg ment and order dated 15th April, 1997, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee, in Sessions Trial No. 377 of 1993, whereby appellant Sohanbir has been convicted under Section 366-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity hereinafter I. P. C.) and sentenced to rigorous impris onment for five years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of pay ment of which, he is directed to under rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.

(3.) THE first argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the First Information Report was highly belated and the same is lodged without suffi cient explanation. On examination of the evidence on record, I found that there is substance in the argument made by learned counsel for the appel lant. THE incident is said to have oc curred on 08-11-1991. at about noon. Almost after ten months, the First Information Report appears to have been lodged on 4th September. 1992. at about 11:35 A. M. THE explanation given by the prosecution for such a long delay of more than nine and a half months is that when the complainant P. W. 1 Kiran Singh, went to the police station to lodge the First Information Report, he was asked to search his daughter first and then to lodge the report. This explanation could have been said sufficient for a delay of couple of days in lodging the First Information Report. But, it is not a case of delay of couple of days in lodging the First In formation Report, rather, there is long delay of more than nine and a half months, in lodging the report, for which the above explanation cannot be said to be sufficient. This long delay itself creates reasonable doubt in the pros ecution story as to the manner in which the incident is said to have been taken place, by the prosecution.