- (1.) THIS is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 9-06-1987, passed by the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in S. T. No. 14 of 1986, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 376 and 366 I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced two years u/s 376 I. P. C. and also two years R. I. u/s 366 I. P. C.
(2.) BRIEF fact of the prosecution case are that the complainant Musya along with his wife and daughter- vic tim on 17-07-1984 went to work in the field. The complainant and his wife returned in the evening and left their daughter-victim to work in the field. When their daughter did not return to home, the complainant went in search of his daughter. On the next day the complainant came to know that his daughter was kidnapped by Ataru with the intention to marry her. The accused Ataru kept Sita in the house of Gwanu and Ratana and there he committed rape upon her. Thereafter, on 24-07-1984 the complainant lodged the report (Ex. Ka. 1) at patwari Chowki Bangaon, Tehsil Dunda, Distt. Uttarkashi. The Patwari Budhi Singh on the basis of the writ ten report prepared chick F. I. R. (Ex. ka. 4) and G. D. entry (Ex. ka. 5) was made to register a Case Crime No. 3 of 1984 u/s 363, 366 and 376 I. P. C. against the accused. The Patwari Budhi Singh took the inves tigation in his hand. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and pre pared the site plan at the place of occurrence. The investigation was taken up as usual which culminated into the submission of the chargesheet against the appellant & two others Gwanu and Ratana. After submission of chargesheet the accused was commit ted to the Court of Sessions for trial and the trial court on 13-1-1987 framed charges against the accused appellant-Ataru, Gwanu and Ratana and the accused denied the charges leveled against them and claimed the trial. The prosecution in order to support its case, produced Musya (P. W. 1), who is the complainant, Vic tim (P. W. 2) is prosecutrix, who has narrated the entire prosecution case. Chatar Singh (P. W. 3) said to have seen Ataru and Sita going together but he turned hostile during trial. Dr. Mrs. Premwati Dimri (P. W. 4) had medically examined the victim and proved the medical examination re port (Ex. 2 ). Ram Nath (P. W. 5) has proved the X-ray report (Ex. Ka. 3 ). Patwari Budhi Singh is the Investigat ing Officer who has proved the chick F. I. R. , G. D. entry, Site plan, recovery memo etc.
(3.) IN the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C. the accused denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned trial court after appraisal of the evidence on record, convicted the appellant under section 376 and 366 I. P. C. The learned Ses sions Judge sentenced two years u/s 376 I. P. C. and also R. I. for a period of two years u/s 366 I. P. C. The trial court had also convicted Gwanu and Ratana u/s 368 for a period of al ready undergone and only fine of Rs. 2000/- respectively. Accused Gwanu and Ratana had not preferred the appeal.;