STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. SHAKEEL
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) PW 5 Sushil wrote a complaint (Ext. Ka-1) to the Officer-In-Charge, PS Laxar, Haridwar, District Haridwar on 10.12.2001 enumerating the facts contained therein that on 09.12.2001, when he was going to Laxar, along with his wife, from where they had to go to Kankarkhata and when they were awaiting for some passenger vehicle, they met Yashveer Singh, resident of Kankarkhata, who offered a lift in his truck, being driven by Shakeel, for Kankarkhata. When they were travelling in the truck, truck driver stopped the truck in the jungle and committed rape with his wife. Accused threatened them with dire consequences. The incident took place in the dead of night at 12:00 p.m. The informant and his wife were shocked on account of threat given by the accused-respondent, they could not lodge the first information report soon after the incident. The complaint was given on the next day. The first information report was registered as case crime no. 281 of 2001 on 10.12.2001 in PS Laxar as regards offences punishable under Sections 376/506. On the basis of such first information report, investigation began. Investigating Officer took the statements of the informant and other witnesses, visited the place of occurrence and completed other formalities. After completing the investigation and on being satisfied that accused-respondent had committed the said offence, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet (Ext Ka-8) against him for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 392 IPC.
(2.) When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 392 IPC was framed against the accused-respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. As many as 09 prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Vinod Chaudhary, PW 2 Jaypal, PW 3 Subhash, PW 4 Smt. Suman, PW 5 Sushil Kumar, PW 6 Man Singh, PW 7 Dr. Manisha, PW 8 Dr. R.K.Pandey and PW 9 Jawahar Singh were examined on behalf of prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the allegations and said that he was falsely implicated in the case. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court acquitted accused-respondent of the charge levelled against him for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 and 392 IPC. Aggrieved against the judgment and order of acquittal of the accused-respondent, present Government Appeal was preferred.
(3.) Prosecution led the evidence through PW 5 Sushil, who, in his examination-in-chief corroborated the contents of his complaint (Ext. Ka-1) and also said that his wife was taken to District Hospital, Haridwar, where she was medically examined.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.