MAHENDRA PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 06.10.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Session Trial No. 87 of 2008 (State of U.P. vs. Mahendra Prajapathi) whereby the accused-appellant Mahendra Prajapati was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 50,000.00 for the offence of rape under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, committed on 05.11.2006 with default stipulation and was also further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 50,000.00 for the offence of rape, committed on 12.11.2006, under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code with default stipulation. Appellant Mahendra Prajapati is also convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 506 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences shall run consecutively to wit one after the other. Out of the fine, so deposited, 50% shall be paid to the victim as compensation.

(2.) In short compass the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 05.11.2006 the victim was going to visit to the house of her friend, namely, Honey near Shahni Colony. The co-accused Sunny, the brother of Honey, intervened while sitting in a Marauti Car. He offered the victim to drop her at her residence by his Car. The victim agreed and boarded the car. Sunny was accompanied with other co-accused Kapil inside the car. When the car was not taken to the right direction then the victim objected. The accused Mahendra Prajapati also joined with the other co-accused. The car was bolted from inside. The music system was switched on at a very high volume. The car was taken towards Orchha forest and when it was moving the victim was forcibly disrobed and raped by all accused. During rape video C.D. was framed by mobile having camera facility. After quenching their sexual thirst, all the three accused dropped the victim to her residence. She received mobile calls from the accused persons that the video C.D. about the entire act of rape has been prepared. They called upon the victim for giving C.D. at a place near Shahni Colony where she was again forcibly sexually ravished by the three accused persons. They did not hand over the video C.D. The victim in the protest got her hand injured with the use of blade. Under the fear of threat extended by the accused persons and their stigmatic public exposure, the victim and her parents decided not to lodge the report and they kept mum. After the incident, on 27.7.2007, the video C.D. alongwith the news of nasty and abominable act of rape reached to the Star News Channel which telecasted the C.D. at about 8.40 P.M. When the accused Mahendra Prajapati got identified by the police and entry was made in the G.D., he was arrested on 27.7.2007 from the house of Bala Ram Yadav at Shivgarh. He confessed the guilt and also stated that the C.D. of rape was prepared by accused Sahil Srivastava and Amit Yadav, who have sold it for good money. During investigation from the possession of the appellant, C.D. Player, two blue film C.Ds, 200 other C.Ds about different movies and songs, which were dubbed, were recovered. From the possession of co-accused Sahil Srivastava and Amit Yadav, one laptop, mouse and C.D., monitor, key board, C.P.U., lead and 87 different CDs were recovered but they were got declared juvenile and the case was separated from the present appellant. During investigation, the victim was examined under Sec. 164 Crimial P.C. After concluding the investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sec. 376 Penal Code for rape on different dates i.e. 05.12.2006 and 11.12.2006. Charges under sections 506 and 292 IPC, 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act , and 63/68 of Copyright Act were also framed.

(3.) To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. in which he has stated that he has been falsely roped in this case on the pressure of the police. Nothing incriminating article was recovered from the possession of the appellant. The C.D. is neither exhibited nor any forensic report was called on. Besides this, C.D. was not produced before the court. No evidence in defence was adduced by the appellant.