Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

For the Appellant : Mr. Shankar Lal Agrawal, Advocate Ms. Asha Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Lily Sahay, Additional Public Prosecutor .....

By Court:- Heard, Mr. Shankar Lal Agrawal assisted by Ms. Asha Kumari, learned counsels appearing for the appellant and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 12.11.2003, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court No.9, Ranchi, in S.T. No.436 of 2002, whereby the sole appellant, Anil Saw has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 448/323/376/511 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 448 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 376/511 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence committed and punishable 307 I.P.C. All the sentences awarded to the appellant shall run concurrently. The period already undergone during trial shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report bearing Silli P.S. Case No. 23 of 2002 dated 03.05.2002, corresponding to G.R. No.1211 of 2002 under Sections 448/ 323 / 324 /307 and 376 /511 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused/appellant.

5. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet vide No.37 of 2002 dated 30.05.2002 under Sections 448 /323 / 307 and 376 I.P.C. against the accused/appellant.

6. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 12.06.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 21.08.2002. The charge has been framed against the appellant/accused on 10th September, 2002, under Sections 448, 323, 376/511 and 307 I.P.C., to which the appellant/accused pleaded his innocence and thus, he was put under trial.

Dr. Md. Enamul Haque, has been examined as P.W.11. He found injury on the person of the informant, on the head, but no injury was found on any other part of the body. He has also examined appellant, Anil Saw, and has found five injuries on the person and the same has been proved and marked as Exhibit-7/1.

13. This Court has perused and scrutinized the evidence. The prosecution case is, that the accused/appellant entered into house of the informant, caught- hold of her and tried to commit rape upon her, but when he became unsuccessful, appellant has assaulted the informant on her head by means of 'daw' (a sharp-cut weapon). So far as allegation of Section 448 I.P.C., is concerned, which is punishment for house tress-pass, the evidence is consistent, as the appellant has been caught on the spot by the villagers. The prosecution witnesses have been examined and cross-examined, but nothing

-9- [Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.250 of 2004] has been elucidated by the defence, while cross-examining the prosecution- witnesses, so far as conviction for the offence committed and punishable under Section 448 I.P.C. is concerned, as such, the conviction passed by the learned Trial Court under Section 448 I.P.C. is affirmed and accordingly, the sentence passed by the learned trial court for rigorous imprisonment for one year is also being affirmed.

14. So far as charge and conviction of the appellant for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 I.P.C. is concerned, the prosecution evidence has fully supported the case of the prosecution, as such, this Court affirms the conviction of the appellant under Section 323 I.P.C. and also affirms the sentence awarded by the learned trial Court for one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence committed and punishable under Section 323 I.P.C.