- (1.) By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 12.06.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bari in Sessions case No. 5/2013. The accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Under Section 376 IPC. Life Imprisonment and fine of 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 3 months' additional simple imprisonment. Under Section 323 IPC. 6 Months' S.I. and fine of 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days' additional simple imprisonment. Under Section 342 IPC. 6 Months' S.I. and fine of 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo 15 days' additional simple imprisonment. (All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently) Brief facts of the case are as under. An FIR was registered on a written-report of complainant Babulal. It was alleged that on 11.03.2010, at around 03:00 P.M. when he returned back after doing his work then his daughter at the age of 7 years was brought by her friends. She was crying. He came out of the hut and found that blood was oozing out from her neck and private parts. He asked the victim about the incidence. It was disclosed that one man has committed rape on her.
(2.) On the written-report, Ex.P-1 the FIR for the offence under Sections 323, 342, 376 IPC was registered. After the investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the offence under Sections 323, 342, 376(2)(f) IPC. The court framed the charges for those offences and explained to the accused. The charges were denied by the accused, thus, trial commenced. In the trial, prosecution produced eighteen witnesses apart from twenty-four documents to prove their case. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC. He produced two documents in defence. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under Section 376 instead 376(2)(f) IPC. The conviction was made even for the offence under Sections 323, 342 IPC. A challenge to the judgment of the trial court has been made in this appeal.
(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence to prove case against the accused. The trial court yet convicted the accused appellant. It is based on surmises and conjectures. Coming to the facts of the case, it is submitted that the accused was not named in the FIR as he was not known to the complainant party. He was not even seen by anyone though PW-1 Durjan Singh has stated that accused was seen running out of the hut but in the identification parade, he identified a wrong person. In the court statement, it was admitted that he could not see the face of the person running from the scene of occurrence and it can be someone else also.;