MADHUKANT PATHAK Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-33
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 22,2013

Madhukant Pathak Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Alok Singh, J. - (1.) PRESENT appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.04.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/4th FTC, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No. 112 of 2009 whereby appellant was held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 354, 366, 367 IPC and sentenced to undergo 2 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 1000 and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment under Section 354 IPC; sentenced to undergo 7 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2000 and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo four months simple imprisonment under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 2000 and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo four months simple imprisonment under Section 367 IPC. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that appellant was a rickshaw puller and he used to carry children from their respective houses to school; victim, a minor girl, also used to go in the pedal rickshaw of appellant to her school; on 02.02.2009 victim could not reach her house till 02.00 p.m. therefore, PW1 Mohan Gupta, father of the victim, went to the school to know the whereabouts of victim; PW1 was told by the school authorities that victim left the school in rickshaw in the company of appellant; PW1 started making search of the victim and when he reached to his house, he found victim in the house; victim was asked as to why she could reach home late; on this victim told to her father that on the way back to home appellant inserted his finger into her private part.
(2.) ON the report filed by PW1 to the above effect check FIR was registered on 03.02.2009 at 01.30 a.m. After investigation, Sub Inspector Ajay Singh PW8 filed a charge -sheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376/511 IPC. However, learned trial court framed the charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 363, 366A, 377, 367, 376/511, 354 IPC. Appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. To prove the prosecution story, PW1 Mohan Gupta, informant, PW2 Victim, PW3 Seema Gupta, PW4 Dharam Dutt, PW5 Dr. R.K. Pandey, PW6 Dr. Poonam, PW7 Roshan Lal Juyal, PW8 SI Ajay Singh, PW9 Birendra Chaddha were examined. Thereafter, statement of appellant was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
(3.) HAVING perused the entire material available on record, trial court was pleased to convict the appellant and sentenced him, as narrated hereinabove.;


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