HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 3.12.2019
Delivered on 18.12.2019
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 536 of 2005
Appellant :- Raju Maurya
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Nagendra Nath Mishra,Maya Pati Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Heard Shri Maya Pati Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S.S. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal appeal has been preferred by Raju Maurya son of Lakhan Maurya, against the judgement and order dated 15.1.2005 passed by Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar in Session Trial No. 105 of 2002(State Vs. Raju Maurya) convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Sectionsection 451 I.P.C. to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- and under Sectionsection 354 I.P.C. also to one year’s rigorous imprisonment. On failure to deposit fine , the appellant has been directed to undergo one month’s further simple imprisonment.
The prosecution case is that the informant, Rudra Bahadur son of Hari Ram Harijan, resident of village of Gaurathi(Harijan Purwa) P.S. Misrauliya, District Siddharthnagar made an application that his wife Seema Devi was sleeping in Varandha of is house in a night on 10.1.2001 when at about 1 A.M. in the night the appellant entered into the house of informant with intention to rape. His wife raised an alarm and saved herself. On her cry for help his neighbour Singare came by that time the appellant had escaped . On 14.9.2001 an application was made before the police station when the village Panchyat refused to hear him and thereafter his First Information Report was registered under Sectionsection 376/Section511 I.P.C. and Sectionsection 3(1) (11) of S.C./SectionS.T. Act. The investigating officer investigated the case and after recording statements of the witnesses submitted charge sheet under the aforesaid sections. The C.J.M. Siddharth Nagar after compliance of Sectionsection 207 Cr.P.C. committed case for trial to the Sessions Court and it was registered as S.T. No. 105/2002.The Sessions Court framed charges against the appellant under Sectionsection 376/Section511 I.P.C. and Sectionsection 3(2) (5) of S.C./SectionS.T. Act, thereafter charge was framed under Sectionsection 457 I.P.C. The appellant denied the charges and sought trial.
P.W. 1, the informant Rudra Badhaur stated that at the time of incident he was at Delhi.On the next day after getting telephone call of his wife, he came from Delhi and after collecting information regarding incident he tried to settle the dispute through Gram Panchayat but no hearing was granted to him. He gave application at the police station.
P.W.2, Seema Devi, the victim stated that on the date of incident at 1 A.M. in the night she was sleeping in Varandha of her house, appellant came and caught her with intention to commit rape and threw her on the ground from the cot. On her alarm the witnesses came.
P.W.3, Om Prakash has also stated in his statement that he was awake for the purpose of urination and saw the incident. He saw appellant running after he heared the scream of P.W.2.
The witnesses of fact P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were cross examined and despite minor discrepancies it was proved that appellant caught hands of the victim P.W.2 and tried to outrage her modesty.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that statements of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were wholly unreliable.There were major contradictions in their statements which the trial court has not considered and has wrongly convicted the appellant. In his defence under Sectionsection 313. SectionCr.P.C.the appellant stated that he has been implicated on account of political rivalry but it has not been considered by the court below.The statements of D.W.1 and D.W.2 have also not been considered. The appellant has been in jail for about twenty three days.During the trial and after conviction he was on bail which has not been misused. The appellant is aged about 55 years and has no criminal history.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that no women will make false allegation against anyone by putting her modesty at stake. The victim was alone in the house and her husband , P.W.1 was in Delhi and taking advantage of the situation appellant entered into the house and tried to rape her. The court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant only for the offences under sections 354 and 451 I.P.C.
After considering the rival contentions, this court finds that the judgement and order of the court below appears to be justified. Only on account of election dispute the informant would not have falsely implicated the appellant through his wife. It has not come on the record that appellant was not candidate for election. Had it been a case of consent, then the alarm would not have been raised by the victim, P.W.2. P.W.3 has clearly stated that only after hearing alarm raised by P.W.2 he came on spot and saw the appellant catching her hand. P.W.1 was not on the scene of occurrence and came later after getting information from his wife on telephone. After his efforts to settle the dispute in Panchayat falied he lodged the First Information Report. There cannot be said to be any inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report. The court below has considered the statements of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and has not found anything which may absolve the appellant of alleged offence.
After considering the totality of facts and circumstances , the time lag and the age of the appellant who is aged about 50 years as per his age recorded in the statement under Sectionsection 313 Cr.P.c. his conviction is confirmed but the remaining sentence of the appellant is converted into fine of Rs. 20,000/-.The aforesaid fine shall be paid to the P.W.2, victim Seema Devi or her legal heirs as compensation, If she is not alive, within two months by the appellant. In case of failure make payment of aforesaid amount the appellant shall be taken into custody and will undergo remaining sentence. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds and sureties shall be discharged only after payment of compensation
The office is directed to send the record of the court below along with copy of this judgement and order within one week from today.
The appeal is partly allowed.
Oder Date :-18.12.2019
Atul kr. sri.