RAJESH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and order dated 3.10.2015 passed by the then Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Kanpur Nagar in S.T. No.14 of 2014, State Vs. Rajesh Yadav, arising out of Case Crime No.149 of 2013 under Sections 342, 354, 452, 504, 506, 376 IPC & Section 4/8 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Narwal, District Kanpur Nagar whereby the accused appellant was found guilty under Section 452, 354-A, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- under Section 452; three years rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs. 3,000/- under Section 354-A I.P.C.; and 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, under Section 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act with default stipulation. However, the accused were acquitted for the offence under Section 342 I.P.C. and Section 506 (2) I.P.C.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that the informant Prema Devi presented an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered. In the application, it was mentioned that the informant was resident of village Bhogipur, Police Station Narwal, District Kanpur Nagar. On 31.10.2013 at 8 a.m. the informant left her minor daughter at home and went to work in the fields. Suddenly, the accused Rajesh Yadav entered her house and raped her minor daughter. The younger son of the informant, namely, Vimal Kumar came in the house when the appellant had gagged the mouth of the victim and was raping her. When Vimal raised hue and cry, the accused threatened the victim and also told Vimal to run away from there. Vimal fled away from there and came to the fields to his mother and told her about the occurrence. At which the informant and her husband rushed to their house. By that time, Rajesh Yadav had left her house. Victim was lying naked in the house and was weeping. The informant asked her about the occurrence, who narrated the whole incident to her. The husband of the informant reported the matter to the police but the police did not take action. On 6.11.2013, on the Tehsil day, an application was moved before the S.D.M. who directed the Station Officer, Narwal to take legal action but no action was taken, hence, she moved an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was registered as an F.I.R.

(3.) On the basis of this F.I.R., Head Constable 95 Tej Bahadur Singh (P.W.4) prepared chik report and proved it as Ext.Ka-2. The contents thereof were copied in the G.D. copy of which was proved as Ext. Ka-3.