PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After dismissal of two applications, the appellant moved third application under Section 389, Cr. P.C. on the ground that since he had already served out sentence for a period of two years and five months and hearing of appeal in near future was not possible he be released on bail. instead of passing any order on the application, decided to dispose of the appeal it self and that is how the matter has come up 5 for hearing.

(2.) The appellant was put to trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3. Bundi, who vide judgment dated February 22, 2006 convicted and sentenced him as under :- u/S. 376, 1PC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 10000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment lor six months. u/S, 341, IPC To suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) It is the prosecution case that on January 17, 2005 informant Ganesh Lal submitted a written report (Ex. P-1) at Police Station K. Patan to the effect that on the said day around 9 p.m. his daughter Guddi. aged 11 years, who went out of the house to drag away the cow, was made to sit in his room by Pradeep Mali (appellant). On hearing alarm of Guddi, Jagan Nath went to the room and took Guddi out of the room. Pradeep threatened the informant of dire consequences and from him the informant and his daughter had apprehension that he might kill them. The SHO directed Gokul Ram ASI to make an inquiry about the incident. Again on January 18, 2005 another report (Ex. P-2) was lodged by Ganesh Ram with the averments that in fact his daughter was raped by Pradeep but he could not incorporate this fact in the first report because of fear. On that report a case was registered and investigation commenced. Necessary memos were drawn, statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. were recorded, appellant was arrested and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3 Bundi. Charges under Sections 363 and 376, IPC were framed against the accused, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313, Cr, P.C. the appellant claimed innocence. One witness in defence was examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated hereinabove.