BHURA @ NASEEM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-54
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 10,2013

Bhura @ Naseem Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.S. Verma, J. - (1.) THIS Criminal Appeal, u/s. 374 of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment and order dated 6 -2 -2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/1st F.T.C. Haldwani in Sessions Trial No. 193/2010, State v. Bhura @ Naseem, convicting the accused u/s. 376/511 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,00/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for 15 days. The prosecution case in brief is that on 21.9.2009 complainant Seema Arya lodged written report, Ext. Ka. 1 at P.S. Haldwani to the effect that her sister the prosecutrix is mentally disabled. On 21.9.2009 at about 3.45 p.m. when her sister was walking in the lane, a boy by enticing kidnapped her and committed rape on her and ran away leaving the girl in a field. Vijay Kumar, brother of Ha chased the accused and caught hold of him in the Samata Ashram Gali and handed over him to the police. On the basis of written report, Chick F.I.R. Ext. Ka.7 was prepared and a case crime No. 415/2009 u/ss. 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(X) S.C. and S.T. Act was registered against the accused. During investigation the I.O. prepared site plan, Ext. Ka. 5, of the place of occurrence and after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet, Ext. Ka.6 against the accused.
(2.) THE learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge framed charge u/s. 376/511 I.P.C. against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution to prove its case examined P.W. 1, prosecutrix, P.W.2, Vijay Kumar, P.W.3, Seema Arya, P.W.4, Dr. Anupama Hyanki, P.W.5, Sri Sadanand Date, Superintendent of Police -I.O., and P.W.6, Constable Gopal Sanwal.
(3.) THE accused, in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations and alleged that the witnesses have given false evidence. However, no evidence was adduced in defence.;


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