ASHARFI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 8270 of 2007 dated 29.01.2013 in and by which the High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the trial court. The trial court vide its judgment dated 30.11.2007 convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 450, 376(2)(g), 323 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short 'the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act]. For conviction under Section 376(2)(g) IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 8,000/- with default clause and for conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, the appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default clause. The appellant was also imposed sentence of imprisonment for other offences under Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Case of the prosecution is that on the intervening night of 8/9.11995, appellant Asharfi and one Udai Bhan are alleged to have forcibly opened the door and entered inside the house of PW-3-Phoola Devi and PW-4-Brij Lal and said to have committed rape on PW-3 Phoola Devi. PW-4-Brij Lal was kept away on the point of pistol. On raising alarm, neighbours (PW-1-Rassu and PW-2-Baghraj) came there and on seeing them, the accused persons ran away threatening the witnesses. Based on the complaint lodged by the complainant Brij Lal, FIR was registered in Case Crime No.76 of 1996 under Sections 376/452/323/506 IPC and under Section 3(1) 12 SC/ST Act against appellant and one Udai Bhan. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant and the said Udai Bhan for the abovesaid offences. As noted above, the appellant and Udai Bhan were convicted for various offences by the trial court. In the appeal preferred by the appellant before the High Court, the High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant and the said Udai Bhan.

(3.) We have heard the learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of the respondent. We have carefully perused the impugned judgment and materials on record.