SURESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374, Cr. P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3-6-2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 49/ 2006 (104/2006) whereby the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 376, IPC. rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 366, IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 363, IPC. All substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on 22-6-2006 at 2.15 p.m.. the prosecutrix, P.W. 5 submitted a written report Ex. P9 before SHO Police Station. Kotwali, Jhunjhunu stating therein that when she and her younger brother Naveen were coming from their school at 12.15 p.m., the present appellant and one Shri Balbeer son of Shri Lalchand met them in the way and both of them came to the Bus Depot with them in the same taxi and when they reached at the bus depot both of them told her that her father is present at a medicine shop situated opposite to the hospital. Shri Balbeer took away her brother-Naveen on the pretext of getting him juice whereas the present appellant took her to a Hotel named "Naveen Hotel" and in the Room No. 106 of that Hotel the appellant committed rape on her. On the basis of written complaint submitted by the prosecutrix. FIR No. 188/2006 for offences under Sections 363 and 376, IPC read with Section 120-B, IPC was registered against the present appellant as well as against Shri Balbeer and after usual investigation charge-sheet was filed apart from the present appellant against Shri Balbeer and one Shri Naveen. THE learned trial Court framed necessary charges against the accused and in support of charges the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence, whereas in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C., the appellant denied the allegation and evidence of prosecution and he specifically stated that father of the prosecutrix Pyarelal owed some money to his in-laws and to pressurize them he has been falsely implicated in case. Opportunity to produce defence evidence was afforded to the appellant but that was not availed, however, during cross- examination of prosecution witnesses certain documents (statements) were exhibited.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also gone through the record made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law.