- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
(2.) THIS criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2008, passed by the then learned Additional Session Judge, Sultanpur, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. with an imprisonment of ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/ - and the appellant has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 I.P.C. with an imprisonment of two years.
(3.) AS per the prosecution case, the complainant Ram Chander Nishad lodged the First Information Report stating that when his daughter, aged about 10 years, was coming back along with her grand -mother then on 28.06.2007, at about 7.00 p.m. the appellant along with his one companion met with the grand -mother and offered them to leave by Cycle. Upon which, the grand -mother sat on the Cycle of Munshi Kahar and the daughter of the complainant sat on the Cycle of the appellant -Surendra Verma. The appellant -Surendra Verma turned his Cycle towards solitude place and committed rape with his daughter and also threatened her for dire consequences. After investigation, the charge -sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 506 I.P.C. The appellant had denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution had examined the complainant Ram Chander Nishad as PW -1, who has supported the First Information Report and has stated that on 28.06.2007, at about 7.00 p.m. when his daughter was coming back with her grand -mother, then at that time Munshi Kahar and the appellant -Surendra Verma met them and offered to leave them by Cycle. The grand -mother sat on the Cycle of Munshi Kahar and his daughter sat on the Cycle of the appellant -Surendra Verma. The appellant -Surendra Verma turned his Cycle towards solitude place and brought her to the government Tubewell where he committed rape with her daughter. After one hour, the appellant -Surendra Verma left his daughter at Budhapur crossing. When she met with her grand -mother then she told the story to her grand -mother and the complainant came to know about the incident by telephone call. Upon which, he had talked with his daughter who narrated the entire incident. He went to the police station concerned for lodging the First Information Report, but he was asked to come in the morning then he went to the police station on 29.06.2007 in the morning again and his report was lodged in the afternoon. The report has been proved as Ext. Ka -1 and his daughter was medically examined.;