- (1.) By this jail appeal, appellant Jeeva Ram has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Bali in Sessions Case No. 54/2003, by which the learned trial court held the accused appellant guilty for the offence under Section 363 and 376(2)(f) of the IPC and punished him as under :- (i) For the offence under Section 363 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. (ii) For the offence under Section 376(2)(f) IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The learned trial court further ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 04.03.2002 complainant Kala (P.W.5) lodged First Information Report in Police Station Nana that on 03.03.2002 at about 9.00 p.m. his daughter Ponri was sleeping in the house. In the night, Jeeva S/o Surma came and took away Ponri to a field at about 1.5 km. away from the house and committed rape with her and then ran away. Ponri came in the night weeping and did not tell anything at that time. She narrated the whole story in the morning to her mother when she brought her for giving bath and found her cloths stained with blood.
(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid report, a Criminal Case No. 28/2002 was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted, accused was arrested and the statements of the witnesses were recorded. After usual investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 376(f) and 363 IPC was filed against the accused appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali. The accused was charged for the offence under Section 376(f) and 363 IPC, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, to prove the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Sumer Singh, P.W.2 Pratap Singh, P.W.3 Rami, P.W.4 Virma Ram, P.W.5 Kala, P.W.6 Dr. Mahendra Kumar, P.W.7 Mangi Lal, P.W.8 Niranjan Pratap Singh, P.W.9 Bati, P.W.10 Panri, P.W.11 Kishan Lal and P.W.12 Ghewar Chand. The incriminating evidence adduced against the accused was put to him for explanation under Section 313 CrPC and the accused produced no evidence in his defence. Learned trial court after hearing both the parties and appreciating the evidence adduced, convicted and sentenced the accused appellant vide the impugned judgment and order as narrated above.;