LALA ALIAS LAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by Lala alias Lal Chand against a judgment dated 2-9-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Anoopgarh, District Sriganganagar whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offences punishable under Ss. 450 and 376/511 of the I.P.C. For the first offence rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs. 100/- has been awarded and on account of non-payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month has been awarded. Similarly, for the offence punishable under Ss. 376/511 of the I.P.C. also, the appellant has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 100/- and additional rigorous imprisonment for one month in lieu of non-payment of fine.

(2.) The incident allegedly took place at about 8.00 p.m. on 16-3-2001 in the township of Suratgarh in the house of P.W. 7 Pancharam. Pancharam lodged a written FIR Ex. P/9 on the next day at 11.30 a.m. at police station, Suratgarh.

(3.) According to the FIR Ex. P/9, Pancharam was residing in his house situate in Ward No. 10 along with his wife Kamla (PW/11) who was mentally retarded and sister Yashoda (PW/9). Further it was stated that while Pancharam was away from his house and Yashoda had gone out to answer call of the nature, the accused entered the house of the complainant and performed sexual intercourse with Smt. Kamla, who was alone in the house. Suddenly, Yashoda returned and found the two in a compromising position. According to the FIR, PW/3 Dharampal had seen the accused entering the house and other neighbours including Smt. Shanti (PW/1) also reached on the spot after hearing the noise and soon Pancharam also returned to his house, who was informed about the inftdent. On this report, a case under Sections 457 and 376 of the IPC was registered and ultimately, the appellant was put to trial for the offences punishable under Sections 450 and 376/511 of the IPC. He pleaded not guilty. Fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none was examined in defence. The arguments were then heard by the learned trial Court and the judgment was delivered on 2-9-2002 and hence, this appeal.