SULTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for Short, "the Code" hereinafter), the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.7.2005 passed by the Special Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 40/2001, whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Sec. 376(2)(f) read with Sec. 511, Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 and in default of payment of fine further to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The facts and circumstances, relevant and necessary for decision of this criminal appeal, succinctly stated are that on 10.10.2000, PW. 7 Om Prakash lodged a typed report with Police Station, Raisinghnagar, district Sri Ganganagar, alleging therein that his daughter PW. 6 Kumari Pramila, aged about 7 years, was going to the house of Manphool Meghwal, the accused-appellant forcibly took her to a room naked her and also put off his clothes, kissed on her cheeks and tried to commit rape, whereupon the prosecutrix raised cries and hearing the cries when he reached the place of occurrence, the accused-appellant, taking his underwear, ran away. His daughter was lying naked in the room and he took her to the house. On this report, the police registered the FIR No. 424/2000 under Sec. 376/511, Penal Code and after investigation, filed Challan against the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 376/511, 323, IPC. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, framed charge under Sec. 376/511, Penal Code against the accused-appellant, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and produced documents. The statement of accused-appellant were recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code and denying the allegation, he has stated that the witnesses have falsely deposed against him. In defence, no evidence was produced by the accused-appellant. After hearing the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as stated above. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the Public-Prosecutor for the State. Perused the impugned judgment and order and the record of the trial Court.