POORAN RAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(UTN)-2012-3-79
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 20,2012

POORAN RAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THE Judgment and order dated 22.11.1999 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 476 of 1997 titled as State Vs. Pooran Ram has been assailed wherein the appellant was found guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo three months additional simple imprisonment.
(2.) IN brief, the facts are that appellant Pooran Ram and prosecutrix Km. Meena resided in the same vicinity at a distance of hundred paces. Father of prosecutrix Km. Meena, was a labour. She has two brothers indulged in same work. A complaint case was instituted by Mohan Ram, father of prosecutrix, against accused Pooran Ram and Khimuli Devi wherein it was averred that his wife had already expired 15 years ago. He has two sons aged about 19 years and 17 years, besides a daughter Km. Meena (prosecutrix) aged about 15 -year. On account of his work, he remained outside from his house for the whole day along with his two sons and Km. Meena was left at residence. Accused Pooran Ram, in absence of male members of family, courted his daughter. Once on 09.06.1995, he noticed visit of accused in his house. On being asked, Km. Meena disclosed everything that Pooran Ram is courting her for the last one year and he has established illicit sexual relation with a promise to marry her resultantly, she has been conceived for the last five months. When this fact came to the notice of complainant Mohan Ram, he asked accused Pooran Ram to marry with Km. Meena but it was completely denied by accused Pooran Ram and his mother and they also threatened to kill him and his daughter, if the insistence for the same is rendered any longer. The complainant Mohan Ram went to Police Station for lodging the FIR but the police did not pay any heed to his complaint so he sent the same to Senior Superintendent of Police, Nainital by registered post and instituted the instant complaint in the court on dated 14.07.1995. After recording the statement of complainant and his witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. respectively, learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter and committed the case to the court of Sessions, being exclusively triable by the same. It is also pertinent to mention that before launching this complaint Km. Meena was produced by her father in Government Female Hospital, Haldwani where she was medically examined and it was revealed that she was carrying eight and a half month's pregnancy on 27.07.1995. In the medical examination, it was reported that her breast were well developed, auxilliary and public hairs were also developed, there was no external mark of injury, two fingers can easily be admitted in her vagina and there was no abnormal discharge.
(3.) LEVELLING of charge was agitated by the accused in front of Sessions Judge but the learned Sessions Judge found it appropriate and sufficient to level charge for the offence under Section 376 IPC against accused Pooran Ram while his mother Khimuli Devi was discharged from offence under Section 376, 506 IPC, so accused Pooran Ram was put to trial.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.