- (1.) UNDER challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 4.2.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No. 10, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 252 of 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 105 of 2002, Police Station Jethwara, District Pratapgarh, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 376 (1) I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also with fine of Rs. 3,000/ - with default stipulation of three months additional imprisonment. For the offence under Section 506 I.P.C., he was sentenced to undergo six months additional imprisonment. However, the appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act.
(2.) IN brief the case of the prosecution was that complainant Samarjeet, who happens to be father of the victim, lodged an F.I.R. at the police station Jethwara alleging therein that on 12.6.2002 at about 9:00 a.m. the victim was taken away by the appellant on the pretext of getting her a sewing machine, which was being made available in block Mandhata under a Government Scheme. The appellant took the victim to Mandhata block and thereafter she was taken to Pratapgarh where he spent whole day and in the evening he told the victim that now no conveyance shall be available to go to the village, therefore, they stayed in a hotel and in the said hotel, after threatening her, rape was committed with the victim. In the next day morning, the appellant brought her back and left her on the outskirts of the village. The victim narrated the story to the complainant. F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 16.6.2002 at 14:35 hours i.e. after about four days of the occurrence. During investigation, the victim was medically examined in District Women Hospital, Pratapgarh and in her medical examination no mark of injury was found on her body or on her private part. Vagina admitted one finger. There was no bleeding, no discharge, no tenderness. Vaginal smear slides were taken and sent for pathological test and the victim was referred for x -ray for determination of her age. On the basis of the aforesaid tests, no definite opinion regarding rape was given and the radio -logical age of the victim was reported to be 17 years.
(3.) THE defence of the appellant was that he lives in the village of his maternal grand father and because of the enmity of the landed property with Ram Lal Pande and Bihari Pande, in collusion with the complainant they got him falsely implicated in this case on the allurement of making available Patta of land and benefit of government grant to the complainant. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined, PW -1 complainant Samrjeet, father of the victim PW -2 the victim, PW -3 Prema Devi, mother of the victim, PW -4 Dr. S.C. Mishra, who has prepared x -ray report, PW -5 Aditya Kumar Shukla, Circle Officer, who has investigated the case as the case was under the SC/ST Act. PW -6 S.I. Tarak Nath Pandey, who has prepared chik report and G.D. of the registration of the case. CW -1 Dashrath Prasad, owner of the Sanjeev Lodge wherein the victim and the appellant are said to have stayed in the night and register of the lodge has also been proved.;