SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Raj Veer & Another vs State Of U.P. on 31 January, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R.

Reserved on 04.01.2018

Delivered on 31.01.2018

Court No. – 12

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 5801 of 2015

Appellant :- Raj Veer Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Suresh Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon’ble Daya Shankar Tripathi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants-accused, learned AGA and perused the material placed on record.

Appellants have assailed the judgment and order dated 19.10.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Banda in Misc. Criminal Case No. 48 of 2010 (State of U.P. Vs. Raj Veer and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2010, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Tindwari, District Banda, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 363, 376(2)g IPC and sentenced to imprisonment of three years under Section 363 IPC and fine of Rs. 3,000/- each (in default of payment of fine one month additional imprisonment) and imprisonment of ten years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each under section 376(2)g IPC (in default of payment of fine two months additional imprisonment).

In the present judgment, I do not propose to mention the name of the victim girl in view of the provisions of Section 228A I.P.C. and in pursuance of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-4 in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shree Kant Shekari (AIR 2004 SC 4404) the prosecutrix (hereinafter referred to as ‘victim’).

Prosecution case, in brief, is that informant Ram Manohar son of Chunkauna, resident of Village Vasilpur, P.S. Tindwari, District Banda submitted written Tahrir (Ext. Ka-1) in the police station concerned, narrating therein that his wife and daughter (victim) had gone to ease themselves on 02.06.2010 at about at about 7:00 P.M. Accused Raj Veer, Sukh Ram and Pappu came there, with countrymade pistol in their hands. Wife of the complainant and the victim stood after easing themselves and all the three accused persons started to get the victim seated on the motorcycle, on the pointing of countrymade pistol. On being objected by his wife, accused persons abused her and intimidated to be silent otherwise they will kill her. His wife raised alarm, but none could arrive on the place of occurrence.

On the basis of aforesaid written Tahrir of the informant, Case Crime No. 71 of 2010, under sections 341,504,506 IPC and section 3(1) 10 S.C./S.T. Act was registered in the police station Tindwari, District Banda on 05.06.2010 at 11:00 A.M. and entry of the case was made in the general diary of the police station. Investigation was taken up by Mahesh Singh, Circle Officer (I.O.). Victim was medically examined by Dr. Anita Sagar and she was referred for pathological test and X-ray examination. Place of occurrence was inspected by the I.O. and map of spot was prepared. After recording statement of witnesses and collecting evidence during the course of investigation, charge sheet (Ext. Ka-7) under sections 363, 366, 376, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act was submitted by him.

Charges under Sections 363, 366-A, 504, 506, 376(2)g IPC and Sections 3(2)5 and 3(1)11 S.C./S.T. Act were framed by the trial court against all the accused persons. Accused persons denied the charges levelled against them and claimed for trial.

As many as seven prosecution witnesses were examined before the trial court.

PW-1 Ram Manohar (complainant) has been examined, who has supported prosecution version. He has proved written Tahrir (Ext. Ka-1).

PW-2 (victim) has been examined, who has supported the prosecution version and deposed that she was taken away on motorcycle by the accused persons on pointing of countrymade pistol and accused Raj Veer and Sukh Ram committed rape with her and she was dropped to the house of her maternal uncle. She has also deposed that she was medically examined and her statement was recorded before the Magistrate concerned.

PW-3 Smt. Bhoori (mother of the victim) has been examined, who has supported the prosecution version and corroborated the version of PW-1 and PW-2.

PW-4 Dr. Anita Sagar has been examined, who has deposed that the victim was brought before her on 08.04.2010 at 6:25 P.M. and she was medically examined by her. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“General Examination: No injury over forearm and breast, abdomen and axilla and enquired region. Axiller and pubic hairs present.

External genital examination: No injury over vulva, lubia majors, minors and clitoris.

Internal genital examination: Hymen torned and vagina entering two fingers easily. Vaginal semen to be taken and prepared and send to pathologist for confirmation of spermatozoa, District Hospital, Banda. X-ray elbow and wrist joint for age determination by radiologist, District Hospital Banda.”

She has further deposed that the matter was referred for pathological test and X-ray report and thereafter supplementary report was prepared by her. She has proved medical examination report (Ext. Ka-2), pathological report (Ext. Ka-3) and supplementary report (Ext. Ka-4). Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“According to pathologist spermatozoa are absent. Dr. S.B. Singh, District Hospital, Banda.

Age is not given by radiologist, District Hospital, Banda. Dr. G.Nikhra

Rt. elbow joint

Epi-physical Rt. elbow joint are fused.

Rt. wrist.

Epi-physical low end of Rt. radius and ulna are not fused.

About Age she is about 16-17 years old. Exact age can be taken from C.M.O. Banda/Radiologist Banda.

About rape It is very difficult to say that rape is committed on her or not.”

PW-5 Constable Kishun Lal has been examined, who has proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-5) and carbon copy of general diary (Ext. Ka-6).

PW-6 Mahesh Singh, Circle Officer, (I.O.) has been examined, who has deposed that he had conducted investigation of this case. He has further deposed that he had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared map of the spot (Ext. Ka-6) and after recording statement of witnesses during course of investigation, prepared and submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-7).

PW-7 Cr. Gyanendra Nikhra (Pathologist) has been examined, who has proved X-ray report (Ext. Ka-5) and x-ray plate (Material Ext. 1). Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“Rt-Elbow AP.

Epi-physes at Rt. Elbow Joint/are fused.

Wrist Rt.

Epi-physes at low ends of Rt. Radius Rt. and ulna are not fused”

Statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the trial court. All the accused persons stated that prosecution evidence is false and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant-accused Raj Veer stated that he was in love with the victim and father of the victim was demanding money from him, failing which he has been falsely implicated.

DW-1 Ram Vishal was examined on behalf of accused persons in their defence, who has stated that the victim was in love with accused Raj Veer and father of the victim was demanding money from accused Raj Veer. He has also stated that he did not hear about the incident.

After giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties, judgment and order dated 19.10.2015 was passed by learned trial court, by which accused Pappu was acquitted from the charges levelled against him and accused Raj Veer and Sukh Ram were convicted under Sections 363, 376(2)g IPC, and sentenced as stated above.

It is this impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants-accused, which is under challenge to this criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants-accused submitted that First Information Report has been lodged after considerable delay. His further submission is that contradictions have appeared in the ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses, due to which prosecution version is doubtful. He further submitted that one of the co-accused Pappu has been acquitted and prosecution evidence has not been found to be trustworthy against him. It has been further submitted that according to medical examination report of the victim, no injury has been found on her body and no spermatozoa has been found in the pathological test, hence, prosecution version is not supported by medical evidence. His further submission is that the victim was in love with appellant-accused Raj Veer, father of the victim was demanding money from him, failing which accused have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that learned trial court has failed to evaluate the evidence of prosecution witnesses properly and charges framed against the appellants-accused are not proved beyond doubt, hence, impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court, suffers from legal infirmity and liable to be quashed.

Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has lastly submitted that if finding of conviction recorded by learned trial court against the appellants, are not set aside, considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the sentence passed by trial court against the appellants, should be modified to the period of sentence undergone by appellants-accused.

Learned AGA submitted that delay in lodging FIR has been properly explained. On the basis of minor contradictions appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses, prosecution version cannot be thrown out. He further submitted that even if no injury and no spermatozoa have been found in the medical examination of the victim, conviction against the appellants can be recorded, if statement of the victim is found to be trustworthy. It has been further submitted that defence version is concocted. It has been further submitted that findings of gang rape have been found to be proved against the appellants-accused and minimum sentence of ten years under Section 376(2)g IPC has been passed against the appellants. There is no proper ground to reduce the minimum sentence passed against the appellants. He further submitted that findings recorded by the learned trial court are based on record and reasoning. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the light of aforesaid arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, evidence available on record is required to be scrutinized.

First and foremost argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants-accused is that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 02.06.2010 at 7:00 P.M. and its FIR has been lodged after delay of three days on 05.06.2010 at 11:00 A.M. and no plausible explanation has been submitted by prosecution side, hence prosecution version is not trustworthy. But, it is borne out from evidence on record that the complainant was in Banda at the time of occurrence and when he was informed about the incident, he returned his home and thereafter contacted the police authority and First Information Report was lodged. Accordingly, delay in lodging FIR has been explained in the prosecution evidence and such a delay cannot be treated to be fatal for prosecution side. Accordingly, there is no force in the aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants-accused.

As far as evidence available on record for proving the guilt of appellants-accused under sections 363, 376(2)g IPC is concerned, PW-1 (complainant) has been examined, who is father of the victim and complainant. He has corroborated the FIR version in his deposition before the trial court and proved Ext. Ka-1. He has also deposed that the victim was dropped to the house of her maternal uncle after the incident and she was brought back by the complainant from there and medical examination of the victim was conducted in District Hospital, Banda. PW-2 (Victim) has been examined, who has corroborated the date, time and place of occurrence as narrated in the FIR and deposed that she had gone for easing herself, alongwith his mother and accused persons came there with countrymade pistol in their hands and took away her on motorcycle and thereafter appellants-accused committed rape with her in the jungle (field) and thereafter they dropped her to the house of her maternal uncle. She has further deposed that she was brought back by her father from house of her maternal uncle on 04.06.2010 and she was medically examined. She has further deposed that her statement was recorded by the I.O. and she had given statement before the Magistrate concerned. PW-3 (mother of the victim) has been examined, who has corroborated the statement of the victim PW-2. She has deposed that the victim was taken away by appellants-accused on motorcycle and appellants-accused intimidated her by countrymade pistol to kill if alarm is raised. She has also deposed that her husband was in Banda at the time of occurrence and he was informed about the incident. PW-6 (I.O.) has been examined, who has deposed that he had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared map of spot (Ext. Ka-9). Perusal of Exhibit Ka-9 reveals that place of occurrence has been shown in jungle (field).

Perusal of evidence of aforesaid witnesses clearly reveals that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have corroborated the prosecution version as narrated in the FIR and place of occurrence is supported by evidence of PW-6 (I.O.). These witnesses have been put to lengthy cross-examination, but no material contradiction has appeared in their evidence.

Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has attracted attention of the Court towards certain minor contradictions in the evidence of these witnesses. He submitted that on the basis of evidence adduced before the trial court, charges levelled against co-accused Pappu have not been found to be proved and he has been acquitted, hence prosecution version is not trustworthy. But, it is borne out from evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 that they have not made any allegation against the aforesaid co-accused regarding abduction and rape and these allegations have been made only against appellants-accused. Accordingly, there was no evidence before the trial court for holding guilty to aforesaid co-accused Pappu under Sections 363, 366-A, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)11 S.C./S.T. Act, hence evidence of these witnesses cannot be discarded on the basis of acquittal of aforesaid co-accused, Pappu.

As far as minor contradictions appearing in the statement of these witnesses is concerned, such contradictions are bound to happen. It is settled principle of law that evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded on the basis of minor contradictions appearing in their evidence and Court has to cull out the nuggets of truth from falsehood and grain from the chaff.

In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh reported in 1989 SCC (Cri) 48, it has been held by the Apex Court that testimony of prosecution witnesses can not be discarded, unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as to destroy confidence in the prosecution witnesses. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:

“Invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if there is a ring of truth in the main. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as to utterly destroy confidence in the witnesses.”

In the case of Balaka Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1975) 4 SCC 511, it has been held by the Apex Court that the Court must make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:

“8. …. the court must make an attempt to separate grain from the chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this could only be possible when the truth is separable from the falsehood. Where the grain cannot be separated from the chaff because the grain and the chaff are so inextricably mixed up that in the process of separation, the court would have to reconstruct an absolutely new case for the prosecution by divorcing the essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and the background against which they are made, then this principle will not apply.”

In the case of Sukhdev Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 8 SCC 86, the Apex Court has held as under:

“It is indeed necessary, however, to note that there would hardly be a witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of exaggeration or embellishment – sometimes there would be a deliberate attempt to offer the same and sometimes the witnesses in their over anxiety to do better form the witness box detail out an exaggerated account.”

The similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Appa Bhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 1988 SCC (Cri) 559, wherein the Court has cautioned the courts below not to give undue importance to minor discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case. The court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness for the reason that witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the court. However, the courts should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy.

In the case of Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2003) 7 SCC 643, it has been held by the Apex Court that even if major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, it is the duty of the court to separate grain from chaff. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witness cannot be branded as a liar. In case this maxim is applied in all the cases it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main.

Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of credence, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient or unworthy of reliance, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well.

In the case of Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh and others reported in 2017 CRLJ 291 SC, it has been held by Hon’ble the Apex Court that only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. Similar view has been reported by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Rammi @ Rameshwar Vs. State of M.P. (1999) 8 SCC 649.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of minor contradictions appearing in their statement. Accordingly, the aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants-accused has no leg to stand.

Learned counsel for the appellants-accused has further submitted that no injury has been found in the medical examination report of the victim and no spermatozoa has been found in the pathological report, so prosecution version is not supported by medical evidence. Accordingly, it has been argued that prosecution version is not trustworthy. But, it is settled principles of law that mere absence of spermatozoa on the materials sent for examination and lack of injury on the body of the victim cannot cast a doubt on correctness of prosecution case.

In the case of Dastagir Sab Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2004) 3 SCC 106, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that presence of injury on the body of the victim is not a sine-qua-non to prove the charge of rape. In the said case, the facts showed that medical examination was conducted after a month of the alleged offence. The medical opinion was that abrasion or marks of violence would be visible for twenty four hours and thereafter the same may disappear.

In the present case, occurrence is said to have taken place on 02.06.2010 and the victim has been medically examined on 08.06.2010. Hence in the light of aforesaid principles laid down by Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Dastagir Sab (supra), it is quite possible that marks of injury might have disappeared when the victim was medically examined and spermatozoa may not be found after such a long gap. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, prosecution version cannot be disbelieved on the basis that no mark of injury on the body of the victim and no spermatozoa in the pathological report was found. Accordingly, there is no force in the aforesaid argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants-accused.

Learned counsel for the appellants-accused further submitted that the victim was in love with appellant-accused Raj Veer and father of the victim was demanding money and appellant-accused Sukh Ram is friend of appellant-accused Raj Veer, due to which they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is noteworthy that findings have been recorded by learned trial court that such defence version has not been put in cross-examination to complainant PW-1. It is also noteworthy that victim PW-2 has fully supported the prosecution version in her deposition before trial court and her statement recorded before the Magistrate concerned under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her version is corroborated by evidence of PW-1 and PW-3. Normally, a lady cannot put her chastity in question on such basis. Hence, there is no force in the aforesaid arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants-accused.

Learned counsel for the appellants-accused lastly submitted that the appellants have undergone about seven and half years out of ten years of sentence imposed against them under section 376(2)g IPC, there is no previous criminal history of the appellants-accused and they are poor persons having family responsibility, hence aforesaid sentence of ten years imposed against them under section 376(2)g IPC should be reduced to period undergone.

According to provisions of Section 376 (2) IPC, Court may impose a sentence of imprisonment of less than ten years, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment. Thus, legislature requires that a sentence of less than ten years can be passed for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in writing. It is settled principles of law that conduct of accused, state and age of victim and gravity of criminal act are relevant considerations for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in writing for reducing the minimum punishment provided. Social economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of accused are irrelevant considerations for recording adequate and special reasons to reduce the minimum sentence.

In Meet Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1980 SC 1141, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that that special reasons must be ‘special’ and not in ‘general’ or ‘ordinary’. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“The court has to weigh reasons advanced in respect of each individual accused whose case is taken up for awarding sentence. The word ‘special’ has to be understood in contradistinction to word ‘general’ or ‘ordinary’. … Thus, anything which is common to a large class governed by the same statute, cannot be said to be special to each of them.

Therefore, in the context of sentencing process, special reasons must be “special” to the accused in the facts and circumstances of the case in which the sentence is being awarded.”

In the case of State of JK Vs. Vinay Nanda reported in (2001) 2 SCC 504, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that ‘special reasons’ have to be distinguished from ‘good’ or ‘other reasons’. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“15……..Where the mandate of law is clear and unambiguous, the Court has no option but to pass the sentence upon conviction as provided under the statute……..

16. The mitigating circumstances in a case, if established, would authorise the Court to pass such sentence of imprisonment or fine which may be deemed to be reasonable but not less than the minimum prescribed under an enactment

17…..For imposing the minimum sentence the Court has to record special reasons. ‘Special reasons’ have to be distinguished from ‘good’ or ‘other reasons’. The fact that the convict had reached his superannuation is not a special reason. Similarly pendency of criminal case for over a period of time can also not be treated as a special reason……….”

In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Krishnappa reported in (2000) 4 SCC 75, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that the social status of the victim or the accused cannot be special reasons. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“18….The measure of punishment in a case of rape cannot depend upon the social status of the victim or the accused. It must depend upon the conduct of the accused, the state and age of the sexually assaulted female and the gravity of the criminal act. Crimes of violence upon women need to be severely dealt with. The socio-economic status, religion, race, caste or creed of the accused or the victim are irrelevant considerations in sentencing policy. Protection of society and deterring the criminal is the avowed object of law and that is required to be achieved by imposing an appropriate sentence.”

In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Prem Sagar reported in (2008) 7 SCC 550, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that punishment must be proportionate to the crime. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“14. …To what extent should the Judges have discretion to reduce the sentence so prescribed under the statute has remained a vexed question. However, in India, the view always has been that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. Applicability of the said principle in all situations, however, is open to question. Judicial discretion must be exercised objectively having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case”

In the case of State of M.P. Vs. Santosh Kumar reported in (2006) 6 SCC 1, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that reason for reducing the minimum punishment should not be only adequate but also special. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“18. In order to exercise the discretion of reducing the sentence, the statutory requirement is that the court has to record adequate and special reasons in the judgment and not fanciful reasons which would permit the court to impose a sentence less than the prescribed minimum. The reason has not only to be adequate but also special. What is adequate and special would depend upon several factors and no straitjacket formula can be indicated.”

In the case of Kamal Kishore Vs. State of H.P. reported in (2000) 4 SCC 502, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that reasons which are general or common in many cases cannot be treated to be special reasons. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“22. The expression “adequate and special reasons” indicates that it is not enough to have special reasons, nor adequate reasons disjunctively. There should be a conjunction of both for enabling the court to invoke the discretion. Reasons which are general or common in many cases cannot be regarded as special reasons.”

In the case of State of M.P. Vs. Bala reported in (2005) 8 SCC 1, it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that the power under the proviso is not to be used indiscriminately or routinely rather it is to be used sparingly. Relevant portion of the report is reproduced below:-

“The crime here is rape. It is a particularly heinous crime, a crime against society, a crime against human dignity, one that reduces a man to an animal. The penal statute has prescribed a maximum and a minimum punishment for an offence under Section 376 IPC. To view such an offence once it is proved, lightly, is itself an affront to society. Though the award of maximum punishment may depend on the circumstances of the case, the award of the minimum punishment, generally, is imperative. The provisos to Sections 376(1) and 376(2) IPC give the power to the court to award a sentence lesser than the minimum for adequate and special reasons. The power under the proviso is not to be used indiscriminately or routinely. It is to be used sparingly and only in cases where special facts and circumstances justify a reduction. The reasons must be relevant to the exercise of such discretion vested in the court. The reasons must be set out clearly and cogently. The mere existence of a discretion by itself does not justify its exercise. The long pendency of the criminal trial or the offer of the rapist to marry the victim are not relevant reasons. Nor is the age of the offender by itself an adequate reason.”

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case and evidence available on record, it is noteworthy that the victim was below age of 16 years at the time of occurrence, she was abducted by the appellants-accused on pointing of countrymade pistol and they committed rape, hence in the light of aforesaid principles of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Meet Singh, State of JK, State of Karnataka, State of Punjab, State of M.P., Kamal Kishore and State of M.P. (supra), lengthy period undergone by the appellants-accused, economic condition of appellants-accused and their family responsibility cannot be treated to be adequate and special reasons defined under section 376(2) IPC. Accordingly, there is no adequate and special reason for reducing the minimum sentence of ten years imposed by learned Trial Court against the appellants-accused under section 376(2)g IPC. Hence, there is no force in the aforesaid arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants-accused.

For all the reasons mentioned hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that findings recorded by learned trial court are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and reasoning. There is no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned trial court. Appeal is devoid of merit and it is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed. Impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court, is affirmed.

The appellants-accused are in jail. They shall remain in jail to serve out the remaining sentence imposed by the trial court. Authorities are directed to consider and provide benefit of remission to appellants-accused, for which they are entitled, under the rules.

Let two copies of this judgment and record of trial court be sent back to the court concerned forthwith, for information and necessary follow up action. Trial court is directed to send one copy of judgment to the Superintendent of Jail concerned for communicating the result of appeal to the appellants-accused and apprise them for legal remedy available against the judgment. Trial court is also directed to submit compliance report within eight weeks.

Order Date :- 31.01.2018

SR

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh