NATHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned.

(2.) This criminal appeal under Sec. 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dtd. 21/8/1993 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nimbahera in Sessions Case No. 112/92, whereby though the accused-appellant was acquitted of the offence under Sec. 392 IPC, but was convicted for the offence under Ss. 366 and 376 IPC; for the offence under Sec. 366 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500.00, in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further three months imprisonment and; for the offence under Sec. 376 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000.00, in default of payment of which, he was ordered to undergo further six months imprisonment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that on 31/5/1992, complainant-Kamla (prosecutrix) verbally informed the Police Station, Nimbahera that the present accused-appellant was her uncle (mausa). The prosecutrix also alleged that she used to accompany his aunt (Mausi) (Ghisi w/o accused Nathu) to the mines (khadaan), where they used to work as labour (hammalli); her aunt also used to take her to the house of the accused, very often. It was also alleged that 3-3½ months preceding the date of the information to the police, the aunt asked the prosecutrix to stay at her house, keeping in view the midnight hours and on the pretext that the mausa (present accused) was away due to some work. Thereafter, the accused-appellant returned back, and after some time, when the prosecutrix fell asleep at the house of her aunt, the accused-appellant covered her mouth and committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix; it was further alleged that not only this, upon coming to know about the incident, her aunt restrained the prosecutrix from reporting the matter to her parents on the ground, amongst others, that if it is so done, the reputation of the family of the prosecutrix would be at stake.