LAXMI KANT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Laxmi Kant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated Sept. 19, 2006 of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 4 Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2006 whereby the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 363 Penal Code for five years RI and fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of payment of fine to suffer six months simple imprisonment and for section 377 Penal Code to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000.00 and in default of payment of fine to suffer six months additional simple imprisonment.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on Feb. 16, 2005, Bhagwat father of prosecutrix Chanchal submitted a written report Ex. P.4. It was mentioned in the report that the accused appellant committed carnal intercourse with prosecutrix Chanchal aged 4 years on 15.2.2005 at 2.30 p.m. in his house. He taken the prosecutrix on the pretext of showing her Puppies at his residence. The police on the basis of written report lodged FIR bearing No. 22 of 2005 for offence under section 377 Penal Code against the accused appellant. The appellant was arrested on Feb. 17, 2005. After investigation the police filed charge sheet against the accused appellant for the offence under sections 366 A and 377 IPC. The concerned Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. The Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Bharatpur framed charge against the accused appellant for the offence under sections 366 A and 377 IPC. The case was thereafter transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4 Bharatpur vide order dated March 4, 2006 of Sessions Judge Bharatpur.

(3.) The prosecution in support of its case recorded statements of 10 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. In defence the accused appellant produced two witnesses. The statement of accused appellant under section 313 Crimial P.C. was recorded. After hearing arguments of both the sides, the trial court convicted the accused appellant for the offence under sections 363 and 377 Penal Code and sentenced him as mentioned above. But the trial court acquitted the accused appellant for the offence under section 366 A IPC.