MD. SARIFUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 07-07-2007, passed, in Sessions Case No. 113 of 2005, by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj, whereby the accused-appellant stands convicted under Sections 457 and 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo, for his conviction under Section 376 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also to undergo, for his conviction under Section 457 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, both the sentences having been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution's case, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as follows: PW3, a divorcee, used to live, in her parental house, with her two children, one of whom was about 6/7 years old and the other about 2 years old. The accused was a neighbor of PW3. On 29-11-2004, at about 1.00 a.m., the accused entered into the house of PW3 by breaking open the door of her house, gagged her and threatened to kill her if she resisted. Putting thus, in fear, the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. As soon as the accused left, PW3 screamed for help and the persons, who were passing by the side of the house of PW3, came to PW3's house and she reported to them about the fact that the accused had committed rape on her. On 29-11-2004, at about 11.30 a.m., a written Ejahar (Ext.2) was lodged at Ram Krishna Nagar Police Station. Treating the said Ejahar as First Information Report (in short, 'FIR'), RK Nagar Police Station Case No. 90 of 2004, under Sections 457/376/506 IPC, was registered against the accused. During investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, drew sketch map of the place of occurrence and, on completion of investigation, laid charge-sheet against the accused for his prosecution under Sections 457/376/506 IPC.

(3.) IN support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 7 (seven) witnesses. The accused-appellant was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.PC and, in his examination aforementioned, he denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being that date of denial and of his having been falsely implicated, because of the land dispute, which the accused had with PW3. No evidence was adduced by the defence.