DAUD Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine amounting to Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'); rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine amounting to Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 366, IPC; and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine amounting to Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 376, IPC, vide judgment dated 03.12.2003/order dated 05.12.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Karnal (for short, 'trial Court'), convict -Daud has brought this appeal to challenge the correctness of findings of conviction.

(2.) AS per case of the prosecution, the prosecutrix, aged about 15 -16 years, was called at about 11:00/12:00 in the noon on 25.12.2002 by the appellant from her house on the pretext that she was called by her mother, Gaphuri, who had gone to the fields to fetch fodder. However, said Gaphuri, on her return from the fields, informed her husband Hakam Ali (PW5) that she did not call the prosecutrix. Thereupon, Hakam Ali (PW5), accompanied by other members of the family and relatives, searched for the prosecutrix but without success and, ultimately, on 04.01.2003, made a statement (Exhibit PE) before the Investigating Officer, ASI Jagdish Chander (PW12), whereupon, a formal First Information Report (Exhibit PG) was recorded. The matter was investigated into. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. During investigation, the prosecutrix was spotted near Bus Stand, Panipat, on 06.01.2003, and on 07.01.2003, was taken to a Magistrate before whom she made a statement (Exhibit PL) under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), inter alia, to the effect that the appellant, after calling her from house on the pretext that she was called by her mother, took her to a tube -well room belonging to Harun Chaudhary and subjected her to rape there under the threat of being killed by showing a knife. Thereafter, he took her to bus stand of village Barsat, through fields, made her to board a bus under the threat of the knife, took her to Panipat and kept her in a room there, where she was again subjected to sexual intercourse against her wish and consent. She also stated before the Magistrate that whenever the appellant would leave the room, he would bolt it from outside. However, she somehow was able to come out of the room and had reached Panipat. Prosecutrix was medico -legally examined by Dr. Archana Soni (PW3). Accused was arrested and was medico -legally examined by Dr. R.S. Bhoria (PW11). On conclusion of investigation, appellant was challaned and was charged by the learned trial Court under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC. Appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

(3.) ALL the inculpating circumstances brought on record in the evidence of the prosecution were put to the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). He denied all the circumstances and reiterated his plea of innocence and false implication besides adding that parents of the prosecutrix wanted to marry her with him and she had herself allured him outside his house to join her. He, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence.