RAJU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 10.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No. 309 of 2010 (State v/s. Raju alias Kallu Rajbhar) arising out of Case Crime No. 101 of 2010, under Ss. 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi, whereby the accused appellant Raju alias Kallu Rajbhar has been convicted and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - under Sec. 366 IPC; ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - under Sec. 376 IPC and one year's rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 506 IPC with default stipulation. Out of the fine so deposited by the accused, half of the same was directed to be paid to the victim. The accused appellant has been acquitted for the offence under Sec. 363 I.P.C.

(2.) In short compass the case of the prosecution as unfolded by the prosecution is that the informant Ram Samujh, son of late Kedar Nath Patel, resident of Mauja Lamhi, Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi handed over a written report at the Police Station Cantt., District Varanasi, Ext. Ka -1 to the effect that at a distance of about 100 meters, office of Shiv Shankar Singh alias Bachcha Singh, resident of Majhmitiya is situated, who deal with the business of plotting. In the office of Bachcha Singh, Raju alias Kallu Rajbhar, son of Dev Narayan and Dharam Patel, resident of Rajnahiya come daily and do the business of carrying soil. Bachcha Singh had an evil eye on his house and plot. All the aforesaid three persons made a conspiracy and at about 12.00 in the noon on 16.02.2010, enticed away his minor daughter aged 13 years and for two days, Raju alias Kallu Rajbhar kept on raping her daughter and threatened her to kill, if she cries out. When he made a search of his daughter, then Bachcha Singh and Dharam Patel told him that we will got your daughter dropped to the house. On 18.02.2010, all the aforesaid three persons left his daughter beneath the tree near his house. In the morning, he met his daughter, who narrated the entire incident. Due to fear and defamation in the society, he did not report the matter earlier. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a chik FIR was lodged on 26.02.2010 at 5.00 P.M. at case crime No. 101 of 2010, under Ss. 363, 366A, 376, 506 IPC, Ext. Ka -4, which was entered in the G.D., Ext. Ka -9.

(3.) After the registration of the case, the investigation of the case was entrusted to PW -4 S.I., Lambodar Prasad Gautam. He deposed that the case was lodged in his presence. On the same day, he started the investigation and recorded the statement of the victim in the case diary and sent the victim for medical examination through lady Homeguard Parwati Devi, lady Constable Mama Vishwakarma and Constable Ravindra Sharma. On 27.02.2012, this witness went to the house of the victim and recorded the statements of Raj Kumari Devi, the wife of the informant and Dharmendra Kumar, son of the informant and inspected the spot. On the pointing out of the victim, he prepared the site plan, which was proved as Ext. Ka -4. After completing the investigation, this witness submitted the charge sheet on 25.03.2010 against the accused, Ext. Ka 5. After the submission of the charge sheet, an application was filed by the informant before the Circle Office, Cantt., Varanasi for re -investigation of the case on 03.05.2010, Ext. Ka 6. On the basis of that order, an application was moved by the Station Officer before the Court concerned for granting permission for re -investigation. Learned court below vide order dated 26.07.2010 passed an order for re -investigation of the case against which a revision was filed and this Court by order dated 30.08.2010 set aside the order of re -investigation.