MEGH RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the prosecution version and its evidence in entirety, appellant-convict Megh Raj son of Amar Singh @ Antu (for brevity "the appellant") has preferred the instant appeal to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated 14.5.2001 and order of sentence dated 15.5.2001, by virtue of which, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default thereof to further undergo RI for a period of three month for the commission of an offence punishable under section 354 IPC by the trial Court of Sessions Judge.

(2.) The contour of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the present appeal and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, is that the marriage of prosecutrix Smt. Sumitra Devi (PW3) was solemnized with Satish Kumar about five years ago. She has two children. She had gone to her parental house about six months prior to the present occurrence. On 18.2.1998 at about 11 AM, as soon as, she was cutting the grass in the fields, in the meantime, the appellant came there on bicycle and asked her to help in lifting a bundle of grass. She asked him to make alternative arrangement, but he told her that none else was available there.

(3.) After completion of the investigation, the final police report (challan) was submitted by the police against the appellant to face the trial for the pointed offence.