GAJENDRA SINGH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 21/12/2013 passed by Special Judge, Special Court, POCSO Act, 2012, Ajmer, whereby appellant has been convicted for offence under Sec. 366 IPC and under Sec. 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000.00 and on non-payment of fine to further undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec. 366 IPC and life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000.00 and on non-payment of fine, to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for offence under Sec. 4 of POCSO Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 3/2/2013, PW-2 (Manju)-mother of the victim lodged a written report at Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer (Ex. P-1). It was stated in the complaint that on 3/2/2013 at around 01:30 pm, the accused appellant kidnapped the victim from Daharsen Park, where the victim had gone along with her three siblings. In the complaint, it was averred that accused-appellant lured the victim and took her on the hillock, where he committed rape with her.

(3.) On the basis of said report, police registered FIR No. 51/2013 under Ss. 363, 365 and 376 of IPC and under Sec. 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Police after due investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Ss. 363, 365, 376 IPC and Sec. 3/4 of POCSO Act. The case was committed to the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments on charge, framed the charges against the accused appellant for offences under Ss. 366, 376(2) IPC and Sec. 3/4 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accused denied the charges and sought trial. As many as 11 witnesses were examined and 40 documents were exhibited on behalf of the prosecution. The explanation of the accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C., wherein he has denied the allegations and stated that he has been implicated due to animosity with paternal uncle of the victim-Rakesh (PW-6). Trial Cpurt after hearing the arguments has convicted the accused- appellant for herein above mentioned offences. Aggrieved by which, accused-appellant has filed this appeal.