RAJENDRA BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 16.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2012 (State vs Rajendra Bahadur alias Rabbu) arising out of Case Crime No. 453 of 2012, under Ss. 342, 376, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Lalitpur, District Lalitpur whereby the accused -appellant has been convicted and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - under Sec. 376 IPC; one year's rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 342 IPC; two years rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 504 IPC and three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - under Sec. 506(2) IPC with default stipulation.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that a report was lodged by Lampu stating that his daughter is minor and incapable of understanding the right and wrong and her own welfare. On 25.12.2011, she was standing at the bus -stand at 3.00 p.m. to go to Baswa. At about 4.00 p.m. when she was waiting for the bus, the neighbour Rajendra Bahadur alias Rabbu came on his motorcycle near the victim and told her that he will drop her by his motorcycle, the victim said that she would go by bus, but the accused insisted and forcibly made her to sit on his motorcycle. At that time, Rakesh was standing there. He witnessed the occurrence. The accused did not go towards Baswa, but took the victim towards the jungle and raped her. He also pointed a country made pistol at her and said that if she would reveal the incident to anybody, he would kill her and her parents. The condition of the victim deteriorated and practically became unconscious, at which at 11:00 p.m. Rajendra Bahadur alias Rabbu left the victim at village Baswa. The victim remained practically unconscious for six days in the village. When she regained consciousness, she narrated the incident to the family members, at which the informant was called and he was informed about the occurrence. The appellant was threatening the victim and her family members that if they would lodge report, he would kill everybody. The accused is class -IV employee and had influence over the police.

(3.) The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses. PW -1 is Lampu, the informant. He proved the report as Ext. Ka -1 and the application under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. as Ext. Ka -2. PW -2 is Bhuwan, wife of the informant. PW -3 is the victim of the case. PW -4 is Head Constable, Mohd. Haneef, who wrote the chik report, which was proved as Ext. Ka -3 and copy of the G.D., which was proved as Ext. Ka -4. PW -5 is Dr. M.I. Siddiqui, who proved the ossification report as Ext. Ka -5 and the X -ray plate as material Ext. 1. PW -6 is Dr. S.K. Verma, who medically examined the victim. He found that the hymen of the victim was old torn and healed. The doctor did not find any injury on the body of the victim. He proved the medical report of the victim as Ext. Ka -5. PW -7 is Inspector, Sabhajeet Singh Chauhan, who conducted the investigation. He recorded the statements of the chik writer, the doctor, the informant and the victim. He prepared the site plan, which was proved as Ext. Ka -6. He copied the medical report in the case diary, recorded the statement of the accused. The investigation ended into a charge sheet, which was proved by this witnesses as Ext. Ka -7.