KEDAR SINGH S/O ROOP RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-8-123
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on August 16,2013

Kedar Singh S/O Roop Ram Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Pw3 Anita Devi wrote a complaint against accused Kedar Singh, on 15.08.2006, to S.D.M. Chakrata, complaining of commission of sexual assault by him. The F.I.R. was registered as case crime no. 3/2006 in Patwari Circle Khabow under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused Kedar Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of sessions for trial. When the trial began and prosecution opened its case, charge under sections 376 I.P.C. and 506 I.P.C. was framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. PW1 Dr. Meenakshi Joshi, PW2 Dr. Yatendra Singh, Radiologist, PW3 Smt. Anita, PW4 Sher Singh and PW5 Narain Singh Rawat were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned trial court found him guilty of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years alongwith a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was directed to undergo further imprisonment for one year, vide impugned judgment and order dated 15.1.2011. Aggrieved against the impugned judgment and order, present criminal appeal was preferred.
(2.) Prosecution led the evidence through PW3 (victim). She said that accused Kedar Singh was co-villager. He was a priest. On 13.8.2006 at 6:00 P.M., she was coming from Damta to Khabahu. She went there to bring medicines. Accused met her near the cowshed at Sernawalon. He took her inside the cowshed. He caught hold of her. He pressed her mouth and sexually assaulted her. When she screamed, Kishan Singh and Magan Singh came. Accused fled away. He threatened her to kill her by voodoo (black magic), if she dared to disclose the incident to anybody. She disclosed the incident to her husband. She went to lodge the report to Patwari, but Patwari was not available at Chakrata. She therefore returned to her village. PW1 thereafter wrote a complaint (Ext-Ka6) to the SubDivisional Magistrate. She also said that she was medically examined. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded.
(3.) In her cross-examination, PW3 said that Abhi Ram was her son. Accused lodged a false complaint against him before this incident. Taru Devi was the Pradhan of the village. Mahabir Singh was her son. Kedar Singh quarreled with Mahabir Singh. Kedar Singh lodged a report against Mahabir Singh. In other words, Kedar Singh lodged complaints against Abhi Ram and Mahabir Singh before this incident. PW1 also said that the accused did not do any wrong to her before the incident in question. Patwari recorded her statement that the accused was after her for a long time. He instigated her for having sex, to which PW3 declined. PW3 said that she was not aware whether she gave such a statement to Patwari or not.;


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