LAWS(DLH)-2014-10-212

MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

Decided On October 14, 2014
MANMOHAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 1.10.2002 and 3.10.2002 respectively, wherein the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 354/451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for one year; for the offence under Section 451 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for one year. Nominal roll of the appellant reflects that as on the date when he was granted bail he had suffered incarceration for less than about 4 days. It has been noted that after the release of the appellant, he had not been appearing inspite of notice and even after coercive steps having been taken against him, he has not put in appearance. Learned amicus -curiae has assisted the Court.

(2.) RECORD discloses that the incident is dated 24.7.1999. At about 4:00 -5:00 am in the morning an information vide DD. No. 34 was received in Police post Rajinder Nagar that one Sardar came to roof of House No. 271/272, Raghubir Nagar and had tried to molest a 12 year old girl. The statement of the victim/prosecutrix 'P' examined as PW -2 was recorded. The complainant was her uncle Pawan who was also examined as PW -4. The allegations in the complaint were that while PW -4 was sleeping with his niece (prosecutrix) on the roof of house No. 272, he heard cries coming from PW.2; he woke up and found that the appellant Manmohan (neighbour) had opened the zip of his pant and he had removed the underwear of his niece and was seen attempting to kiss her. Accused tried to escape but he was apprehended on the spot by PW -4. The other family members of PW -4 also woke up. On the complaint made by him the present FIR was registered.

(3.) THE accused was arrested at 9 am. This is evident from his arrest memo Ex. PW -4/C. He was medically examined at 1.30 pm vide memo Ex. PW -5/C. Relevant would it be to note that no injury of any kind was present, although the doctor had opined that there was nothing to suggest that the patient was incapable of sexual act.