RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Raj Kumar challenges the judgement and the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 4.5.1994 and 5.5.1994 respectively. The learned trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 363/366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ - with respect to the offence punishable under Section 363 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Qua offence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Lastly, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C., the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. All the sentence were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE relevant facts are the Vishnu is a conductor in the Haryana Roadways. He has four daughters and a son. Sumitra is the eldest daughter and was a student of 8th class in Government Girls High School. On 5.5.1993 she returned from the school at about 2.00 P.M. and took her lunch. Thereafter she started reading. The mother of Sumitra had gone out of the house. When she returned, Sumitra was missing. She looked her Sumitra in the neighbourhood but could not trace her. When Vishnu returned to his house, he was informed that Sumitra was missing. He also searched for Sumitra but without any result. Suresh and Phool Kumar informed that they had seen the appellant near the house. Vishnu suspected that the appellant had enticed his minor daughter aged about 15 years. On these broad facts, he got recorded the complaining statement resulting in registration of the formal first information report.

(3.) ON 18.5.1993 S.I. Ram Sarup alongwith his police party were returning from Chhuckhakwas. The appellant was found with prosecutrix Sumitra. He was seen sitting in the hut near the road. Statement of Sumitra was recorded in which she stated as to how she was enticed and thereafter raped by the appellant.