BHOOP SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants Meghraj Singh and Bhoop Singh have filed these two appeals against the judgment dated November 17, 2005 of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 2 Bharatpur in Sessions Cases No. 30 of 2004 and 22 of 2005 whereby the accused appellant Meghraj Singh was convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 376 IPC to suffer 7 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer six months simple imprisonment, whereas appellant Bhoop Singh was convicted under section 376 read with section 114 IPC and sentenced to suffer 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default of payment of fine to suffer 3 months simple imprisonment.

(2.) IT may be mentioned here that both the accused appellants were co-accused in an FIR registered against them and investigation was done against them but accused appellant Bhoop Singh was arrested on 27.12.2003 and accused appellant Meghraj Singh absconded. Trial against Bhoop Singh was completed and thereafter Meghraj Singh was arrested and again trial court recorded the statements of the witnesses. As both the accused appellants were co-accused in the FIR No.361 of 2003, the judgment in both the sessions cases was pronounced only after completion of trial in the case of Meghraj Singh. Both the accused appellants were convicted and sentenced vide combined judgment dated November 17, 2005 as mentioned above. Since the accused appellants were co-accused in an FIR No.361 dated 30.8.2003, both these appeals are being disposed by this common judgment.

(3.) IN the statement under section 164, the prosecutrix Mamta implicated the appellant Bhoop Singh and Meghraj. Her statement before the court of Judicial Magistrate No.4 Bharatpur was recorded on September 27, 2003 i.e. after one month of the incident. She started her statement before the court that one month before in the night at 1 p.m. she was sleeping at her residence's roof. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and gave beating to her. IN the statement she stated as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... IN the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. Mamta, prosecutrix implicated the appellants Bhoop Singh and Meghraj. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her. IN the statement to the police she stated as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... IN the trial in case No.30 of 2004 against Bhoop Singh, the prosecutrix Mamta (PW.6)implicated the appellants Bhoop Singh and Meghraj. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when Mamta was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her. IN her court statement she stated as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... IN the statement before the court in Sessions case No.22 of 2005 Mamta (PW.11) prosecutrix implicated the appellants Bhoop Singh and Meghraj. The allegation against Bhoop Singh and Meghraj is that when she was sleeping Bhoop Singh and Meghraj taken her away to the residence of Bhoop Singh and at the residence of Bhoop Singh Meghraj committed rape with her and beaten her. IN the court statement she stated as under : 30.8.03 ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... IN the statement before the court PW.1 Dr. Usha Gupta (in Sessions Case No.22 of 2005) stated as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... It is clear from her statement that she has given definite opinion about rape on the basis of the FSL report committed by the accused appellant Meghraj on the prosecutrix Mamta. IN the statement before the court PW.4 Virendra ( in Sessions Case No.22 of 2005) implicated the accused appellants Bhoop Singh and Meghraj. He has seen both the appellants running from the roop and seen them caught hold of Mamta. Virendra stated in his statement as under : IN the statement before the court PW.5 Bhoodev stated as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... n the statement before the court PW.8 Dulari, who is mother of the prosecutrix stated as under : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... IN the FSL report Ex.P.2 dated 12.5.2005, it was stated that human semen was detected in Exhibits No. 1 (from packet marked A) and 4 (from C). A and C were Salwar and Vaginal smear.