HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R.

RESERVED

Court No. – 63

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 3982 of 2014

Appellant :- Chheda Lal

Respondent :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Bhaskar Bhadra,Hari Prakash Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

1. 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’).

2. The present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19/20.09.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Bareilly in Session Trial No. 152 of 2013 (State vs. Chheda Lal), under Sections 452 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station Bhuta, District Bareilly. By the impugned judgment and order learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant under Section 452 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Accused-appellant has also been convicted and sentenced under Section 376 I.P.C. and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. The learned Judge has further directed that both the sentences of the accused-appellant shall run concurrently.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 08.12.2012 informant Nanhe Lal son of Jhau, resident of village Sunha, Police Station Bhuta, District Bareilly submitted a written report at 6:20 hours at police station Bhuta stating therein that on 03.12.2012 when he had gone to the house of his relative, the accused-appellant Chheda Lal entered into his house and pulled her daughter victim PW-2 into the room and committed rape on her. When she raised hue and cry accused-appellant fled away from the spot. Hearing hue and cry, the resident of his village Pramod Kumar PW-3 came over there and seen the occurrence. Initially due to shame the informant did not go to the police station to lodge the first information report. On the basis of the written report Exhibit Ka-1 which was submitted by the informant at police station, police registered a case at Crime No. 526 of 2012, under Sections 452 and 376 I.P.C. After the case was registered, investigation commenced and victim was medically examined on 08.12.2012. Spot inspection was also conducted by the Investigating Officer and site plan Exhibit Ka-4 was sketched. After completing the investigatory formalities, on the basis of sufficient evidence charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-5 for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 I.P.C. was submitted. The case was committed to the court of Session and subsequently charges under Section 452 and 376 I.P.C. were framed on 22.03.2013 against the accused-appellant who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove it’s case the prosecution has examined informant Nanhe Lal PW-1, victim PW-2, Pramod Kumar PW-3, Dr. Kiran Patel PW-4, I.O. Rehan Khan PW-5, Subhash Chander PW-6 and Dr. Piyush Rashtogi PW-7.

5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-appellant has denied the entire prosecution story and also the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. He has further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case by informant and his son-in-law Pramod Kumar PW-3 due to enmity. In defence accused-appellant has examined Brij Pal DW-1 and Shalig Ram DW-2.

6. Learned judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as indicated in para-2 of the judgment above. Aggrieved, he has come in appeal.

7. Heard Sri Bhaskar Bhadra and Sri Hari Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the accused-appellant, Sri Tarkeshwar Yadav assisted by Sri Vijay Kumar Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused judgment as well as the record of the trial Court.

8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the accused-appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. He has further submitted that there is considerable delay in lodging first information report for which no plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution. It was next submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence available on record in correct perspective and impugned findings are based on surmises and conjectures. It was also submitted that the prosecution story is not corroborated with the medical evidence. The trial Court has illegally being swayed away by the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution. Lastly, it was submitted that the conviction and sentences awarded to the accused-appellant are wholly illegal and therefore the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. The learned Additional Government Advocate supporting the impugned judgment has submitted that the entire prosecution case is well proved through testimonies of informant Nanhe Lal PW-1, victim PW-2 and Pramod Kumar PW-3. He has further submitted that the accused-appellant was known to the informant, victim PW-2 and Pramod Kumar PW-3 as he was the resident of the same village. It was next submitted that the victim was about 16 years of age, so no question of her consent arises and also there is no contradiction in the prosecution evidence. It was also submitted that circumstances has also the link evidence which are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant of the charges levelled against him. It was further submitted that the learned trial Court has not erred in recording the findings of guilt against the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Section 452 and 376 I.P.C. and appropriate sentences has been awarded to him.

10. Before we proceed to analyze the evidence on record in order to appreciate the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties it would be proper to narrate in brief the statements given by the prosecution witnesses in their examination-in-chief.

11. Informant Nanhe Lal PW-1 is the father of the victim PW-2. He deposed that on the date of incident he had gone to the house of his relative along with his wife. His daughter victim PW-2 and younger sons namely Ram Kishore, Ram Shankar and Ram Ratan were left at home. He further deposed that his elder daughter Basanti and her husband Pramod Kumar PW-3 were living on rent at the house of one Rajendra in his village. His elder son Bablu had already gone to Mathura for labour work. He also deposed that incident occurred 14 months back at 30:30 P.M. in his house. His neighbour accused-appellant Chheda Lal son of Babu Ram entered in his house and finding his daughter victim PW-2 alone at home tied her mouth with her stole (dupatta) and committed rape on her. At the time of incident all his three sons were not present at home. They had gone to school. At the time of incident his son-in-law Pramod Kumar PW-3 had gone towards his house hearing the noise of victim PW-2 when his son-in-law entered in the house then the accused-appellant Chheda Lal disengaged her and ran away. He also deposed that when his son-in-law tried to catch hold on accused-appellant Chheda Lal, he fled away by punching him. He further deposed that after two days of the incident when he returned home his daughter victim PW-2 and Pramod Kumar PW-3 told everything to him. He also informed his wife and asked her to come home. Due to shame 2-3 days he did not come out of his house. Thereafter on 08.12.2012 he along with his daughter victim PW-2 went to the police station and lodged first information report. He has also proved the written report which is marked as Exhibit Ka-1. He also deposed that Investigating Officer had interrogated him.

12. Victim PW-2 deposed that on 03.12.2012 her parents had gone to visit her maternal place at village Mahui Farrukhabad. Her elder brother Bablu had already gone to Mathura for labour work. She along with her all three brothers Ram Kishore, Ram Shankar and Ram Ratan were left at home. She further deposed that on 03.12.2012 i.e. the day of the incident all her three younger brothers were not at home, they had gone to school. She was alone at home. At about 3:30 P.M. her neighbour Chheda Lal son of Babu Ram finding her alone at home, entered into his house and pulled her into a room from under the thatched. She shouted to which he tied her mouth with her stole (dupatta) and forcibly tore up her ‘Kurta’ from its one side as also her ‘Salvar’ its front side and forcibly had his way with her. During this episode, she shrieked when stole (dupatta) was dropped. At the same time, her brother-in-law (sister’s husband) who does sewing work and lives on rent at the house of one Rajendra with her sister Basanti in this very village came over there then Chheda Lal disengaged himself from her, rose up and ran away. When her brother-in-law caught hold of Chheda Lal, he fled away by pushing him. She further deposed that on hearing the shouts, several other persons from the locality came over there. She was weeping, thereafter two days of the incident i.e. 05.12.2012 her brother-in-law Pramod Kumar PW-3 and she told everything to his father when he returned. Then, the next day his father informed his mother and asked her to come home. She also deposed that on her mother’s coming back home, she had narrated her the entire incident. Her father did not go out of door due to shame. Thereafter, on 08.12.2012 her father took her to the police station and lodged first information report. Thereafter, on 08.12.2012 itself, she in the presence of her father Nanhe Lal and brother-in-law gave the ‘Salvar’ to the Sub-Inspector which she was bearing at the time of incident. In presence of her father Nanhe Lal and brother-in-law Pramod Kumar PW-3, the Sub-Inspector sealed her ‘Salvar’ in a white cloth. After the incident she was medically examined. The Sub-Inspector recorded her statement and interrogated her with respect to the incident.

13. Pramod Kumar PW-3, who is the son-in-law of the informant Nanhe Lal PW-1, deposed that his in-law’s home (sasural) is in village Sunha. Elder daughter of the informant Basanti is his wife. He further deposed that he does the sewing work and was living at the house of Rajendra with his wife Basanti on rent for last 10 years in the aforesaid village Sunha. On 03.12.2012 his mother-in-law Usha Devi and father-in-law Nanhe Lal PW-1 have gone to his in-law’s home (sasural) at village Mahui, District Farrukhabad. On 03.12.2012 at about 3:30 P.M. he went to the house of his father-in-law to see whether children had returned from school or not. When he entered in courtyard of the house of his father-in-law, he heard the shriek of the victim. At the same time he saw that accused-appellant suddenly ran away from the room. He further deposed that he caught hold of accused-appellant Chheda Lal and there was grappling with him and he also received injuries in his left eye. Accused-appellant Chheda Lal fled away from the spot by punching him. He also deposed that on hearing the shouts, several other persons from the village came over there. Victim told him that accused-appellant forcibly had his way with her. She also told that accused-appellant pulled her into the room from under the thatched. When she screamed, the accused-appellant tied her mouth with her stole (dupatta) and committed rape on her. On 05.12.2012 when his father-in-law returned from his in-law’s house (sasural) he narrated him the entire incident. His father-in-law also informed his mother-in-law and asked her to come back home. He further deposed that next day victim also narrated the entire facts to her parents. The villagers were pressurizing his father-in-law not to lodge first information report. Thereafter on 08.12.2012 father-in-law Nanhe Lal lodged the first information report. He also deposed that the victim gave her ‘salvar’ to the Sub-Inspector in his presence and in presence of his father-in-law Nanhe Lal PW-1 which the victim PW-2 was wearing at the time of incident. Sub-Inspector had sealed the ‘salvar’ in white cloth and prepared its memo. He has also proved it and it is marked as Exhibit Ka-2.

14. Dr. Kiran Bala PW-4 has stated that on 08.12.2012 she was posted as Emergency Medical Officer in the District Women Hospital Bareilly. On that day she had medically examined the victim. On her examination, she had found that the height of the victim was 4 feet and 10 inch, weight 40 kg, teeth 15/15. There was no injury on her person. Axillary hair were present and breast was well developed. Pubic hair were shaved. There was no injury on her private part. Victim had told that her date of menses was one day before. Hymen was old torn. Vagina was admitting two fingers easily, vaginal smear was taken and sent to pathology department for examination. At the time of examination menses of the victim was continuing. Dr. Kiran Bala PW-4 has proved the report Exhibit Ka-7 and further stated that on 29.12.2012 at about 2:35 P.M. she had prepared the supplementary report of the victim Exhibit Ka-3 on the basis of pathology report and x-ray report. She assessed the victim to be aged about 18 years.

15. Investigating Officer S.S.I. Rehan Khan PW-5 deposed that the investigation of this case was entrusted to him on 08.12.2012. He recorded the statement of the informant and victim and also took the clothes of the victim in possession which she had worn at the time of incident and prepared memo as Exhibit Ka-2. He further deposed that he also inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan Exhibit Ka-4. After completion of investigatory formalities on the basis of sufficient evidence charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-5 for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 I.P.C. was submitted.

16. HC Subhash Chandra PW-6 has proved the chik report as Exhibit Ka-8 which was prepared by him on the basis of written report of informant Nanhe Lal PW-1 father of the victim PW-2 on 08.12.2012 at about 6:20 hours. He has further deposed that he had entered the case on report No. 9 in GD and its carbon copy had been proved by him as Exhibit Ka-9.

17. Dr. Piyush Rashtogi PW-7 has stated that on 11.12.2012 he had medically examined the victim to ascertain her age. In X-ray examination elbow joint and knee joint were fused. Only joint of fibula bone was about to fuse, all bones of the wrist were in process of fusion. He has proved the x-ray report as Exhibit Ka-6.

18. In defence accused-appellant has produced two witnesses Brij Pal DW-1 and Salikram DW-2 respectively. Brij Pal DW-1 has stated that son-in-law of the Nanhe Lal PW-1 lives in his village Sunha. About 21 months back Pramod Kumar PW-3 was abusing in drunken condition in a lane which was situated in front of house of accused-appellant Chheda Lal. At that time he was selling water chest nut there. When accused-appellant Chheda Lal intervened, he also started to abuse him. There was an altercation between them. Accused-appellant had given a blow by fist on the eye of the Pramod Kumar PW-3, on this Pramod Kumar PW-3 has said that he would teach him such lesson which he could not forget till his life. Pramod Kumar PW-3 was son-in-law of the village so villagers used to avoid him.

19. Salik Ram DW-2 has also given out almost the similar statement as that of defence witness Brijpal DW-1. So it is not necessary to repeat his statement.

20. In the present case the incident as alleged to have taken place on 03.12.2012 at about 3:30 P.M. and the first information report of this case was lodged on 08.12.2012 i.e. after five days of the incident. According to the chik FIR Exhibit Ka-8 the distance of the village Sunha from the police station was 5 kilometers towards east-south. In the said incident the daughter of the informant Nanhe Lal PW-1 was raped when he had gone to his in-law’s home (sasural) in District Farrukhabad. Two days after the incident when he returned home his daughter victim PW-2 and his son-in-law Pramod Kumar PW-3 told everything to him. Due to shame 2-3 days he did not go out of doors. Pramod Kumar PW-3 deposed that villagers were pressurizing him not to lodge the first information report. On perusal of the first information report Exhibit Ka-1 and statements of Nanhe Lal PW-1 victim PW-2 and Pramod Kumar PW-3, I find that prosecution witnesses have given elaborate reasons as to why informant could not submit first information report earlier. More so, in any event delay per se is not a mitigatory circumstances for the accused-appellant when accusation of rape is involved.

21. In the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Others AIR 1996 SC 1993 Hon’ble Apex Court in para-7 has observed as under:-

“7. In sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family. It is only after giving it a cool thought that a complaint of sexual offence is generally lodged. Even if there is some delay in lodging FIR in respect of offence of rape, if it is properly explained and the explanation is natural in the facts and circumstances of the case, such delay would not matter.”

22. In the case of Karnel Singh vs. The State of M.P. AIR 1995 SC 2472 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

“There was considerable delay in lodging FIR. It was therefore, contended that there was sufficient time for tutoring the victim and her evidence could not be believed. Negativing the contention and confirming the conviction the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that – The submission overlooks the fact that in India women are slow and hesitant to complain of such assaults and if the prosecutrix happens to be a married person she will not do anything without informing her husband. Merely because the complaint was lodged less than promptly does not raise the inference that the complaint was false. The reluctance to go to the police is because of society’s attitude towards such women; it casts doubt and shame upon her rather than comfort and sympathize with her. Therefore, delay in lodging complaints in such cases does not necessarily indicate that her version is false.”

23. In the case of Ram Naresh and Others vs. State of Chhatisgarh AIR (2012) SC 1357 Hon’ble Apex Court has held- that delay, if any, in lodging first information report, if explained properly, is in no way fatal to the case of the prosecution.

24. In this view of the matter the delay in lodging the first information report with the police is of no consequence in this case.

25. The next question which requires the attention of the Court is as to the age of the victim on the date of occurrence. The informant Nanhe Lal PW-1 has stated in examination-in-chief the age of his victim daughter PW-2 was about 16 years at the time of incident. The victim has also deposed that she was about 16 years of age. According to the statement of Dr. Kiran Bala PW-4 and medical examination report Exhibit Ka-3, victim was about 18 years of age. There is no school leaving certificate or other material which show that the victim was about 16 years of age at the time of incident. Thus in view of the medical evidence available on record, I am of the view that the victim was about 18 years of age on the date of incident.

26. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused-appellant, testimony of informant PW-1 victim PW-2 and Pramod Kumar PW-3 is on record. Informant Nanhe Lal PW-1 is not the eye witness of the incident. Statement given by the victim and Pramod Kumar PW-3 are wholly consistent. Victim has stated that on 03.12.2012 i.e. the day of incident all her three younger brothers were not at home. They had gone to school. She was alone at home. On 03.12.2012 on the day of the incident at 3:30 P.M. her neighbour Chheda Lal son of Babu Ram finding her alone at home, entered therein and pulled her into the room from under the thatched. He tied her mouth with her stole (dupatta) and forcefully tore up her ‘Kurta’ from its one side as also her ‘salvar’ from its front side and forcibly committed rape on her. The victim PW-2 has narrated the manner in which she was raped by the accused-appellant in her house. Statement of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and credible. There is no good ground to disbelieve them. The stander of truth to be expected by the Court in such cases must take into account the fact that such crimes are generally committed on the sly and very rarely direct evidence of a person other than the victim is available. Court must also relies that ordinarily as women more so of young girl will not stake her reputation on a false charge concerning her chasity. In this case it was submitted by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that there was no injury on the body of the victim. It is true that there is no injury on the body of the victim including her private parts. But the absence of injury on any part of the body could not falsify the case of rape by accused-appellant. The absence of any injury on the body of the victim may not its discredit the statement of the victim. Merely because the victim was helpless and who was prevented by force from offering serious resistance she cannot be disbelieved. Rape is not only a crime against a persons of woman it is crime against the entire society. It leaves behind traumatic experience.

27. In the case of Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 922, dealing with sociological and philosophical aspect of the matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

“Unfortunately, a woman, in our country, belongs to a class or group of society who are in a disadvantaged position on account of several social barriers and impediments and have, therefore, been the victim of tyranny at the hands of men with whom they, fortunately, under the Constitution enjoy equal status. Women also have the right to life and liberty; they also have the right to be respected and treated as equal citizens. Their honour and dignity cannot be touched or violated. They also have the right to lead an honourable and peaceful life. Women, in them, have many personalities combined. They are Mother, Daughter, Sister and Wife and not play things for centre spreads in various magazines, periodicals or newspapers nor can they be exploited for obscene purposes. They must have the liberty, the freedom and, of course, independence to live the roles assigned to them by Nature so that the society may flourish as they alone have the talents and capacity to shape the destiny and character of men anywhere and in every part of the world.

Rape is thus not only a crime against the person of a woman (victim), it is a crime against the entire society. It destroys the entire psychology of a woman and pushed her into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer will power that she rehabilitates herself in the society which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime. It is a crime against basic human rights and is also violative of the victim’s most cherished of the Fundamental Rights, namely, the Right to Life contained in Article 21. To many feminists and psychiatrists, rape is less a sexual offence than an act of aggression aimed at degrading and humiliating women. The rape laws do not, unfortunately, take care of the social aspect of the matter and are inept in many respects.”

28. In the case of Mohd. Imran Khan v. State (Govt. N.C.T. of Delhi) 2012 CRI.L.J. 693 Hon’ble Apex Court in para-15 of the judgment has held as under:

“Thus, the law that emerges on the issue is to the effect that statement of prosecutrix, if found to be worthy of credence and reliable, requires no corroboration. The court may convict the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix”

29. Similarly in the case of Wahid Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 (68) ACC 266 (SC) Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraphs no. 21 and 22 has observed as under:

“21. It is also a matter of common law that in Indian society any girl or woman would not make such allegations against a person as she is fully aware of the repercussions flowing therefrom. If she is found to be false, she would be looked by the society with contempt throughout her life. For an unmarried girl, it will be difficult to find a suitable groom. Therefore, unless an offence has really been committed, a girl or a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any such incident had taken place which is likely to reflect on her chastity. She would also be conscious of the danger of being ostracized by the society. It would indeed be difficult for her to survive in Indian society which is, of course, not as forward looking as the western countries are.

22. Thus, in a case of rape, testimony of a prosecutrix stands at par with that of an injured witness. It is really not necessary to insist for corroboration if the evidence of the prosecutrix inspires confidence and appears to be credible.”

30. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. Vs. Bodem Sundara Rao, 1995 (6) SCC 230 has cautioned the Courts while dealing with the cases of sexual crime against women in the following words:

“Sexual violence apart from being a dehumanizing act is an unlawful intrusion of the right to privacy and sanctity of a female. It is a serious blow to her supreme honour and offends her self esteem and dignity. It degrades and humiliates the victim and where the victim is a helpless innocent child, it leaves behind a traumatic experience. The Courts are, therefore, expected to deal with the cases of sexual crime against women with utmost sensitivity. Such cases need to be dealt with sternly and severely.”

31. In view of the above discussion, I find that the statements of the informant Nanhe Lal PW-1, victim PW-2 and Pramod Kumar PW-3 are not only corroborate each other but also with the first information report as also the documentary evidence available on record. The trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has not erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 I.P.C.

32. I have also considered the defence version of the accused-appellant. According to the defence version the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. This version in itself appears to have no force. No father of any woman would falsely implicate any persons in such a case in which his/her family reputation and the future of the woman is adversely affected and more over the defence version is not supported by any first information report or any application to police authorities in regard to alleged incident (maarpit) which was taken place between the accused-appellant and Pramod Kumar PW-3 who is the son-in-law of the informant. Even no date of incident (maarpeet) has also been disclosed by the accused-appellant side. The testimony of the defence witnesses does not inspire confidence because none of them has stated in their statement that at the time of occurrence in question the accused-appellant was not present on the spot or on that day he was along with them at some other place. They had only stated in the statement that about 21 months back Pramod Kumar PW-3 was abusing him quarreling with the accused-appellant in a lane which was situated in front of the house of the accused-appellant. So the testimony of the defence witnesses is not reliable and the same is of no help to the accused-appellant. On the other hand the testimony of the victim PW-2 not only inspires confidence but is otherwise corroborated on all material particulars.

33. As regards the sentences learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that the accused-appellant is a village rustic and belongs to a poor family. He has three children. There is no other person to look after his family. It was further submitted that the accused-appellant has been in jail since throughout. He has already incarcerated in jail for a long time. He is poor and illiterate persons. It was also submitted that he has suffered a lot of during this period and has no previous criminal history and still he is confined in jail. He had moved an application of bail which was also rejected by this Court. It was also submitted that the age of the victim was about 18 years so the provisions of Section 376 (2) (f) are not attracted and simply the accused-appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. apart from under Section 452 I.P.C. Therefore, liberal approach should be adopted against the accused-appellant.

34. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellant. A perusal of the record shows that in this case the accused-appellant has already been incarcerated in jail for a long time. He is poor and an illiterate person. He has suffered a lot during this period and has no previous criminal history and still he is confined in jail as submitted by the counsel for the accused-appellant. Although we are conscious that social status, religion, race, caste or creed of the accused-appellant or victim are irrelevant for determining the gravity of the offence and awarding the sentence and the gravity of the criminal act and the violence with a female need to severally dealt with. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also submissions advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellant, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment under Section 376 I.P.C. only is modified and substituted by 7 years rigorous imprisonment in place of 10 years.

35. In the view what has been said above, I find that the accused-appellant has been rightly found guilty by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 376 I.P.C. The sentence of imprisonment under Section 452 and 376 I.P.C. is confirmed. However, the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 I.P.C. is substituted by 7 years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment stands modified to the above extent. The accused-appellant is in jail and he would serve the remainder of his sentence.

35. Let the two certified copies of the judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned for record. Learned trial Court would send one copy of the judgment to the Superintendent of Jail concerned for conveying the result of the appeal to the accused-appellant and also apprise him of his legal remedy against this judgment. Compliance report be positively submitted to this Court within eight weeks.

Order Date :- 12.1.2018

A.K.Verma