Decided on May 24,2013

Dinesh Chandra Kumeri S/O Shiv Lal Kumeri Appellant


- (1.) Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2012 passed by Sessions Judge, Chamoli in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2007, whereby appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- , and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment of one year with further stipulation that Rs.50,000/- fine shall be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C.
(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that on 17/10/2007, prosecutrix was recovered from the house of one Surendra Kumar S/O Mangana Ram, village Mailbagad, Tehsil Gairsain, District Chamoli by Patwari on the secret information received, and thereafter, prosecutrix was handed over in the safe custody of Smt. Jumiti Devi, and thereafter, a chick F.I.R. was lodged with Patti Patwari at 4:00 p.m. on the same day by the mother of the prosecutrix Smt. Vipada Devi to the effect that prosecutrix went missing w.e.f. 25th September, 2007; she (Smt. Vipda Devi PW1) had no suspicion on the appellant; from 25th September, 2007, she (Smt. Vipda Devi PW1) was suspecting Surendra Kumar S/o Mangana Ram that he by deceitful means had taken away her daughter (prosecutrix) and might have exploited her sexually; today on 17th October, 2007, in her presence, Staff of Revenue Department, recovered her daughter from the home of Surendra Kumar; she did not want to take prosecutrix in her custody. On the basis of Chick F.I.R. dated 17th October, 2007, case was registered against Surendra Kumar S/o Mangana Ram under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. During the investigation, statement of prosecutrix as well as her mother, Smt. Vipda Devi PW1 were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
(3.) It was stated by the prosecutrix that on 25th May, 2007, there was a cultural programme in Junior High School, Ghandiyal, Gairsain; when girls were preparing for the programme, appellant came in the room and asked other girls to go out, and thereafter, appellant took the prosecutrix to the wash room and committed rape on the prosecutrix; on 25/09/2007, prosecutrix went to Floor Mill; Surendra Kumar came and told the prosecutrix that Master Jee (appellant) was calling her, therefore, she should accompany him (Surrendra Kumar); she went with Surrendra Kumar; Surendra Kumar took her to his house and raped her; on the next day, i.e., 26th September, 2007, father of Surendra Kumar, namely, Mangana Ram took her to the house of his daughter at Nagchulakhal; on 1st October, 2007, Surendra Kumar came to Nagchulakhal and on 2nd October, 2007, took her to Dehradun wherein prosecutrix and Surendra Kumar stayed till 15th October, 2007 and in the meanwhile, Surendra Kumar committed rape on her. Both of them came back at the house of Surendra Kumar on 15th October, 2007 and on 16th October, 2007, recovery of prosecutrix was made by the Patti Patwari from the house of Surendra Kumar; she was medically examined on 17/10/2007; thereafter lady constable, Naib Tehsildar Chandrawal took her to Gopeshwar; in the night, Naib Tehsildar Chandrawal also raped her; next day she was produced for medical examination. On the basis of such statement, a chargesheet was submitted against the present appellant in the present case. It is stated at Bar, chargesheets were also submitted against Surendra Kumar and Naib Tehsildar Chandrawal and trials are pending.;

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