SATENDRA SINGH S/O NANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Satendra Singh S/O Nandan Singh
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This appeal, preferred under section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short Cr.P.C), is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.08.2012, passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal, in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2005, whereby said court has convicted the accused/appellant Satendra Singh, under section 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C. The trial court has sentenced the accused/appellant Satendra Singh to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 363 of I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 366 of I.P.C, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- under section 376 of I.P.C.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of the trial court.
(3.) Prosecution story, in brief, is on 29.04.2005, First Information Report (Ex-A1) was got lodged by PW2 Jogendra Singh stating that his minor daughter Shweta (PW1) did not come back on 26.04.2005 from her school. When the search was made for the girl, and she was not found it was suspected by the informant (Jogendra Singh) his daughter has been eloped by accused Satendra Singh. On the basis of said report Crime No. 01 of 2005 was registered with Patti Patwari Dodialsau Ist. (In Uttarakhand hills certain Revenue Officials are given police powers). PW6 Vijay Singh Chauhan Patwari Dodailsau, Ist, started investigation, and got Shweta (PW1) recovered on 12.05.2005. She (PW1 Shweta) was taken to PW5 Dr. Geeta Chaudhary of District Hospital, Pauri Garhwal, for medical examination. Said Medical Officer on examination of the girl prepared her report (Ex-A4) in which she mentioned that there was no external injury on any part on the body of the girl. The sex characteristics of the girl was found developed, hymen was found torn, and vagina admitted two fingers easily. PW5 Dr. Geeta Chaudhary opined in her report that "no definite opinion can be given about rape."
Thereafter, the girl was taken for radiological examination, and PW3 Dr. D.K.Jain after radiological examination opined that age of the girl was above 14 years and less than 16 years. After interrogating the witnesses inspected the spot, and arrest of the accused, Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet (Ex-A11) against the accused Satendra Singh, for his trial in respect of offences punishable under section 363 and 366 of I.P.C.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.