MUNNI @ CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS - Smt. Munni @ Chandra and Munna @ Raj Kumar have directed the present appeal against the judgment dated 27.4.2010 and order dated 5.5.2010, passed by Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad vide which accused/appellants have been convicted under Sections 363 read with Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code ( in short - the IPC ) whereas accused Munna @ Raj Kumar also convicted under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC and sentenced them as under : - Convict Under Sections Sentence 366 IPC Munni alias Chandra to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for seven months. 366 IPC Munna alias Raj Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for seven months. 376 IPC Munna alias Raj Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for ten months. 506 IPC Munna alias Raj Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION story in brief is that complainant Mahesh, who is father of the prosecutrix is resident of Gandhi Colony, NIT Faridabad. One Malati used to live in the neighbour. Accused Munni Devi cousin of Smt. Malti Devi had arrived from Agra to attend a function. The prosecutrix had gone to the roof for spreading washed wet clothes for drying. Accused Munni Devi coming to the roof of Malti had indulged in conversation with the prosecutrix, who was on the roof top of her house.

(3.) THE copies of documents as relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused free of costs as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session therefore, the same was committed to the Court of Session.