PURNO BDR. SONAR Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.12.2012 passed in Sessions Case No. 21/L/2012 arising out of Pasighat P.S. Case No. 69/2006 convicting the accused appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo RI for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo further RI for 4 months. The period of detention already undergone shall be set off as per Section 428 Cr.P.C. On the basis of the FIR dated 10.8.2006 lodged by the PW-2 with the O/C Pasighat Police Station, Pasighat P.S. Case No. 69/2006 was registered against the accused- appellant under Section 448/506/376 IPC. In the FIR, it was alleged that on 16.7.2006 the accused appellant coming to the house of the first informant committed rape on her daughter aged about 13 years taking advantage of the absence of the other members of the family. According to the FIR, the accused appellant thereafter also committed rape on the victim girl on the following Sunday also.

(2.) Pursuant to registration of the aforesaid Pasighat P.S. Case No. 69/2006, the police carried out the investigation, during which the victim girl was examined and forwarded for medical examination to General Hospital, Pasighat. It also took the statement of the available witnesses. The accused was arrested on 10.8.2006. On completion of the investigation, the I/O submitted charge sheet against the accused on 9.10.2006 under Section 448/506/376 IPC. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class committed the case to the then Court of Sessions, Pasighat for trial and disposal. Thereafter the case proceeded in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, East Sessions Division, Tezu, Lohit district and by the impugned judgment and order dated 26.12.2012, the accused appellant having been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, he has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) In the Trial Court formal charge was framed against the accused appellant under, Section 376 and 506 IPC. The charge were read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. During trial, prosecution examined 5 witnesses and also exhibited 6 documents. PW-1 and 2 are the father and mother of the victim girl, while PW-3 is the victim girl herself PW-4 is the Doctor, who examined the victim girl. PW-5 is the I/O, who investigated the case.