LAWS(ALL)-2017-10-269

MAHARAJDEEN Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On October 06, 2017
Maharajdeen Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Criminal Appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 29.1.1998 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No.4, Raebareli in Session Trial No. 409 of 1995 whereby accused appellant Maharajdeen was found guilty under section 376 of IPC and was sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The brief facts as narrated in the first information report is that on 21.10.1991 about 5.00 P.M. when the victim aged about 17 years was cutting gross and collecting it, the accused appellant Maharajdeen came there and caught hold the victim and without her will and consent committed an offence coming within purview of Section 376 of IPC. Her father named Vindeshwari son of Lala Lodh resident of village Tikta Musallepur, P.S. Jagatpur, District Raibareli lodged first information report Ex.Ka-1 on 21.10.1991 to the police station Jagatpur. The first information report was registered under Section 376 of IPC and the matter was investigated in case crime No. 154 of 1991. After investigation, a charge sheet under Section 376 of IPC was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of session where the accused was summoned and charge under section 376 IPC was framed against him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

(3.) In order to prove the prosecution case, PW-1 Vindeshwari, PW-2 Rajwati , PW-3 Dr. Shaila Khanna Medical Officer , PW-4 Dr. S.P. Srivastava Radiologist and PW-5 B.L. Dohare Investigating Officer were examined. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-appellant denied from the charge and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and police has submitted wrong charge sheet against him. No evidence in defence has been filed or produced in court by appellant. After hearing the learned counsel for parties and going through the records, the learned session Judge found the accused appellant guilty and sentenced him, as above.