SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) Sheo Chand, the appellant herein, was put to trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Behror (Alwar), who vide judgment dated December 20, 2002 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :- Under S. 376 (2)(g), IPC : To suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Under S. 366-A. IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 1000/-. in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Under S. 363/109, IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Since co-accused Ashok Kumar was juvenile on the date of offence, his case was sent to the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Court, Alwar.
(2.) As per prosecution story informant Mukesh Kumar (FW.1) on April 15, 2001 submitted a written report at Police Station Behror with the acerments that on April 12, 2001 around 2 p.m. Sheo Chand and Ashok Kumar took away his sister 'S' from the house. 'S' was raped by Sheo Chand and Ashok Kumar. On April 13, 2004 'S' came to Narnaul and went to house of her maternal uncle. On that report a case under Sections 366-A and 376. IPC was registered and investigation commenced. The appellant was arrested Necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Behror (Alwar). Charges under Sections 353. 366-A and 376, IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and daimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 13 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313, Cr.P.C., the accused claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the apellant as indicated herein-above.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that charges against the appellant have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutrix travelled many places but she did not raise any alarm. No report of her missing was ever lodged and even the report of offence was filed after three days of the alleged incident. According to statement of prosecutrix herself the appellant did not take her from her house and it was co-accused Ashok Kumar who took her with him and committed rape on her. Since Ashok Kumar stood acquitted by the the Principal Magistrate, the appellant could not be held liable for the offence.;