Imtiyaz Murtaza, J. - (1.) -This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.5.2001, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in S. T. No. 909 of 1999 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, under Section 376, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for six months.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case, according to the first information lodged by the informant Mukesh Jain against the appellants and one Rajan Thakur at P. S. Lone, district Ghaziabad on 3.4.1999 at 5.15 p.m., are that on 3.4.1999 the informant alongwith his wife Satyawati and two sons had gone to take medicine for epilepsy from Janwale Baba, Behta Hajipur. He left his daughter Ritu aged about 13 years and a son aged about 7 years at home. At about 3.30 p.m. when they returned they saw that his daughter Pooja was peeping inside the room and she told them that Anil Jeeja and his two friends are assaulting Ritu. He, his wife and Virendra Jain also peeped inside the room and saw that Sheeshpal was catching hold of the leg of his daughter and Rajan Thakur was catching hold of her hands and Anil Goel was assaulting her with a knife on her neck. THEy entered into the room by breaking open the door. THE accused persons by brandishing brick, danda and knife ran away and also threatened them. Anil used to come to his house alongwith Sheeshpal and Rajan Thakur and they were known to them from before. THEy were also seen running away by the people of the locality and they had tried to apprehend them but they could not do so. He saw that his daughter Ritu was also raped and her dead body was lying inside the room. After the registration of the case S.I. Yaduraj Singh commenced investigation. He prepared the inquest memo, Ext. Ka-5 on the dead body of Ritu Jain and handed over the dead body to Constables Shivnath Singh and Arvind Kumar for carrying it to mortuary for the post mortem examination. The report to C.M.O., Photolash, sample seal and Challan lash are Exts. Ka-6 to Ka-9 respectively. He collected blood smeared and plain earth from the place of occurrence under a recovery memo, which is Ext. Ka-10. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the informant and prepared site plan on his pointing out, which is Ext. Ka-11. He recorded the statements of the inquest witnesses and statements of Km. Pooja and Smt. Satyavati. He also recorded the statement of Vijendra. After the arrest of the accused one blood stained knife was recovered on the pointing out of Anil Goel. A blood stained chimta was recovered on the pointing out of Sheeshpal and its recovery memo is Ext. Ka-12. On 10.4.1999 he prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence, which is Ext. Ka-13. After the conclusion of the investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons, which is Ext. Ka-4. Dr. Mahendra Kumar Sindhvi conducted the post-mortem examination on 4.4.1999 at 2 p.m. and noted following ante mortem injuries : 1. Incised wound Rt. side neck middle part Trachea cut muscle vessels cut obliquely place. Clean cut margins size 4 cm. x 3 cm. x Trachea cavity deep. 2.Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. on Lt. side neck middle part 1/2 cm. deep muscles and vessel nerves cut. 3.Abrasion mark on Lt. nipple around 3 cm. in radius, 6/6 teeth marks present. 4.Abraded contusion on Rt. nipple area size 5 cm. x 4 cm. medial side. 5.Multiple linear abrasion with contusion size 3 cm. x .02 x 0.3 cm. on the front of abdomen near umbilicus around. 6.Ruptured hymen with lacerated and contusion mark (1.5 x 1.5 cm.) 7.Abraded contusion on both palms of both hands (8) in number, on left Shoulder (3) in numbers and on neck (3) in number, total 14 in numbers. Depth is skin to muscle deep.
(3.) IN the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was asphyxia and shock due to injuries. After submission of the charge-sheet the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the Sessions Judge had framed charges under Sections 302 and 376, I.P.C. and in order to prove its case the prosecution had examined 6 witnesses. The case of the defence was of denial and false implication.;