SATISH LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Pw2 Guman Lal wrote a complaint on 28.09.2011 to Inspector In-charge, Kotwali Rudraprayag, which was registered as case crime no. 27 of 2011, on 28.09.2011, at 10:45 P.M., against the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC. The incident was alleged to have taken place on 26.09.2011, at 10:45 P.M. There was a distance of six kilometers between the place of occurrence and the police station concerned. Considering the nature of the offences, it cannot be said that the FIR was delayed. After the investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 376, 506 of IPC was submitted against the accused Satish Lal. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charge for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(2.) Pw1 Km. Sanjana (victim), PW2 Guman Lal (informant and father of victim), PW3 Surendra Lal, PW4 Smt. Darshani Devi (mother of victim), PW5 Smt. Parwati Devi (grandmother of victim), PW6 Head Constable Vijay Pratap Singh, PW7 Dr. Reeta Bhandari, PW8 Jeet Singh PW9 S.I. S.I. Nav Kishor, PW10 Lady Constable Suman Kanswal and PW11 S.I. Himendra Singh were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which he said that he was falsely implicated in the case. No evidence was adduced in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and was directed to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Accused was also convicted under Section 506 of IPC and was directed to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment, vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2011. Aggrieved against said order, present criminal appeal was preferred.
(3.) Prosecution led the evidence through PW1 Km. Sanjana (victim). When she came to depose, she was 8 years' old. After conducting her voir dire and after being satisfied that she was capable of understanding the things, the court below permitted her examination.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.