The judgment establishes the power of the court to convict for uncharged offenses based on the evidence found in the record, the sufficiency of evidence required for conviction, and the relevance of delay in lodging the FIR.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 7th of Aril, 2007 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah [“the trial court”] in Sessions Case No.22/2001, titled ‘State of J&K v. Subash Chander’, whereby while acquitting the appellant of the charge punishable under Sections 376/511 RPC convicted him for offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 341 RPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment of two months under Section 354 RPC and one month each under Section 323 and 341 RPC, with further direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by Mr. Ashok Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant to find fault with the judgment impugned, a brief reference to the prosecution case, set up before the trial court, would be necessary.

3. Complainant-Naib Chand alongwith his daughter-prosecutrix in an injured conditions presented an application before the Incharge Police Post, Bhalla against the appellant alleging therein that on 20.09.2000 at 1.30 p.m., when prosecutrix was returning to her house from Government High School Seri, she was waylaid by the appellant who outraged modesty of the prosecutrix, held her forcibly and started teasing her. Prosecutrix made a noise. Meanwhile, one Prem Raj, VDC member, who was on patrolling, came on spot and on seeing him, appellant fled away. The appellant had also committed such type of acts 2/3 times earlier also. On the basis of this complaint, vide FIR No.202/2000 a case registered at Police Station, Bhaderwah under Section 376, 511, 341, 354, 323 RPC and the investigation was set in motion.

4. During investigation, Investigating Officer visited the spot and prepared the site plan. One blood stained duppata was also seized. The prosecutrix was sent to Bhalla Hospital and certificate from the doctor was obtained. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. On culmination of the investigation, challan was presented before Judicial Magistrate, Bhaderwah, who, committed the same to the trial Court.

5. Charges under Sections 341, 376, 511, 323 RPC were framed against the appellant vide order dated 29.11.2001, who denied the charge and claimed to be tried. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined prosecutrix, Prem Raj, Hans Raj, Mool Raj, Naib chand, Dr. Madan Lal and Alaf Din as prosecution witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, whole of the incriminating evidence was explained to the appellant and his statement was recorded, in terms of Section 342 CrPC. The appellant denied the allegations appearing against him in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and examined Ram Lal, Sukh Ram, Om Parkash and Jiwan Lal as defence witnesses.

6. The trial court, after considering the evidence that has come on record before it and rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, has held that no offence under Section 376, 511 RPC was made out, established or proved against the appellant. However, offences under Section 354, 323, 341 RPC were held proved against the appellant and he was accordingly sentenced to undergo, simple imprisonment for two months for offence punishable under Section 354 RPC and simple imprisonment for one month each for offences punishable under Sections 323/341 RPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently, vide judgment impugned dated 07.04.2007. It is this judgment which is assailed before this Court by the appellant on numerous grounds.

7. Mr. Ashok Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant, while reiterating the grounds taken in the appeal, submits that trial court has mis-appreciated the evidence on record resulting into wrong conviction. It is submitted that the impugned judgment/order is liable to be set aside on the ground that conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 354 RPC for which he was never charged nor the charge was altered, is bad. As per the learned counsel,