Advocates:
['FROM JAIL', '', 'VIKRAM BAHADUR SINGH AC', 'A G A']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 89 A.F.R.

Case :- JAIL APPEAL No. - 5100 of 2011

Appellant :- Amar Singh

Respondent :- State

Counsel for Appellant :- Vikram Bahadur Singh, Amicus Curuae

Counsel for Respondent :- Mr. Shrawan Kumar Ojha (A.G.A.)

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

1.

Present jail appeal has been preferred against

the judgment and order dated 7.7.2011 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.5, Kanpur

Nagar whereby the accused appellant Amar Singh

has been convicted and sentenced under section 366

I.P.C. to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment

and fine of Rs.2000/- and under section 376 I.P.C.

for seven years R.I. and fine of Rs.3,000/-, with

default provision in each of the offences. The

appellant has been acquitted of the charge under

section 363 I.P.C.

2. Heard Mr. Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned

amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant and Mr.

Shrawan Kumar Ojha, learned Additional

Government Advocate for the State.

3. The prosecution case is that the complainant

Bablu, P.W. 1 lives in Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur in a

hut and carries on the business of selling eggs for

livelihood. Amar Singh, the present appellant works

in Arya Nagar karkhana. He also lives in Swaroop

Nagar. On 22.3.2010, Amar Singh enticed away

daughter of the complainant aged about 16-17

years, from her home. He agreed her to marry. The

complainant apprehended both, the accused Amar

Singh and his daughter from karkhana and gave

them in the custody of police. A written report was

given by him to the police station on the basis of

which case crime No.60 of 2010 under sections

363, 366 I.P.C. was registered.

4. Investigation was conducted by the investigating

officer. Statement(s) of the prosecutrix and other

prosecution witnesses were taken. The prosecutrix

was medically examned. Her statement was

recorded under section 164 CrPC. On pointing out

of the prosecutrix, place of occurrence was

inspected and site plan was prepared and

consequenly charge-sheet against the accused

appellant under secctions 363, 366, 376, 506 I.P.C.

was filed. Against the accused appellant, charges

under sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. were framed.

The accused denied the charges and claimed to be

tried.

5. From the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 Bablu,

P.W.2 prosecutrix, P.W.3 Dr. Jyotsana Kumari,

P.W.4 S.I. Ram Chandra Pal and P.W.5 Constable

Pradeep Kumar were examined. The written report

has been exhibited as Ext.Ka-1, supurdaginama as

Ext. Ka-2, medical report of the victim as Ext.Ka-3,

supplementary medical report as Ext.Ka-4, site plan

2 of 19

as Ext.Ka-5, charge-sheet as Ext.Ka-6, chik FIR as

Ext.Ka-7 and G.D. entry as Ext.Ka-8. Statement of

the accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded

where the case of the accused is of denial.

6. The prosecutrix in her statement under section

164 CrPC has stated that she went with the accused

to Arya Nagar Karkhana. She was forcibly raped

there and was threatened. She was subjected to rape

thrice. She became unconscious and in the morning,

she came home and told the incident to her mother

and then her parents and brother Deepu went to

karkhana and caught the accused from there and

gave him to the police.

7. P.W.1 Bablu has stated that on 22.3.2010, the

accused enticed away the prosecutrix from his

home. He also went to karkhana. Both of them were

found there and he agreed them to marry. From the

karkhana, he apprehended the accused and the

prosecutrix, and handed them over, to the police.

In cross-examination, he changed the time of the

incident and stated that the incident took place in

the month of November, then stated that the

incident occurred on December 28 evening. He

further stated in his cross examination that his

daughter has not told him that she was enticed

away. He knew the accused. He is a resident of