AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CONVICTION,SENTENCE
Appellant Santosh @ Najir
under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (1) of IPC","RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.50/-, on
each count with default stipulations.
Appellant Devendra Kumar
under Sections 363 and 366/34 of IPC","RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.50/-, on
each count with default stipulations.
Appellant Keshar Bai
under Sections 363, 366/34 and 114 of IPC.","RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.50/-, on
each count with default stipulations.
Looking to the evidence, it is established before the trial Court that the appellant Santosh had criminal intention to commit intercourse with her, that",
is why he kidnapped the prosecutrix with intention to commit intercourse with her and thereafter committed rape on her. Version of the prosecutrix is,
natural and inspires confidence and she has no grudge against the present appellant to rope him in false charge. There is no material contradiction in,
the statement of prosecutrix and witnesses and all have deposed in one voice and therefore, it is not the case where material contradiction is",
established. Minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the case are insignificant and therefore, minor contradictions have no adverse affect to",
the entire case of the prosecution.,
The statement of the prosecutrix is quite natural, inspires confidence and merits acceptance. In the traditional non-permissive bounds of society of",
India, no girl or woman of self respect and dignity would depose falsely implicating somebody of ravishing her chastity by sacrificing and jeopardizing",
her future prospect. Evidence of the prosecutrix to be followed at par with an injured witness and when her evidence is inspiring confidence, no",
corroboration is necessary.,
It is true that there is delay of six days in lodging the report at Police Station. Where report of rape is to be lodged many questions would obviously,
crop up for consideration before one finally decides to lodge the FIR. It is difficult to appreciate the plight of victim who has been criminally assaulted,
in such a manner. Obviously prosecutrix must have also gone through great turmoil and only after giving it a serious thought, must have decided to",
lodge the FIR. Precisely this appears to be the reasons for little delayed FIR. The delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case",
involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the Police,
Station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition bound society prevalent in India, more particularly, rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the",
prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR.,
After assessing the evidence, there is nothing on record to say that the appellant Santosh has been falsely roped with the charge. Evidence of",
prosecutrix and other witnesses are reliable, therefore, there is nothing to say that their version cannot be acted upon. Looking to the entire evidence,",
argument advanced on behalf of the appellant Santosh is not sustainable and his act falls within mischief for which the trial Court convicted him and,
same is hereby affirmed. The trial Court awarded minimum sentence and less than minimum cannot be awarded.,
Accordingly, the appeal No. 878 of 2011 preferred by appellant Santosh being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. He is",
reported to be in jail, therefore, no further order for his arrest etc., is required.",
So far as appellants Devendra Kumar and Keshar Bai are concerned, the only evidence against them is that they accompanied the appellant",
Santosh. There is nothing on record to say that both these appellants have intended to accompany the prosecutrix for any illegal purpose. Mere,
accompanying to some place is not criminal act and looking to the evidence on record, it is not established that both these appellants had criminal",
intention of kidnapping or for some other offence, therefore, it would not be safe to affirm the finding against these two appellants.",
Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1004 of 2011 preferred by appellant Devendra Kumar and Criminal Appeal No. 804 of 2011 by appellant",
Keshar Bai are allowed and their conviction and sentence is set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. Both the appellants are reported to,
be on bail. Their bail bonds shall continue for further period of six months in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.,