JUDGEMENT
D.N.PATEL, P.P.BHATT, J. -
(1.)This appeal has been admitted vide order dated 5th Dec., 2013 and record and proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 388 of 2006/94 of 2010 was called for from the trial court so as to appreciate the argument for suspension of sentence.
(2.)We have perused the record and proceedings of the sessions trial and heard the counsel for both sides at length. Looking to the evidences on record, there is prima-facie case against this appellant, who is original accused no. 4 in S.T. No. 388 of 2006/94 of 2010. Since the criminal appeal is pending, we are not much inclined to discuss the evidences on record, but suffice it to say that looking to the deposition of P.W. 4, it appears that she has clearly narrated the role played by this appellant accused in commission of the offence. This appellant accused came in a car and along with other co-accused kidnapped the prosecutrix putting a blindfold upon her eyes and covering her mouth and thereafter she was taken to various places by train and this appellant accused was also present there in the train as stated in paragraph 13 of the judgment and also in the deposition of P.W. 4. Therefore, it appears that a crucial role has been played by this appellant accused as co-conspirator. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that rape has not been committed by the appellant. This contention is not helpful for the appellant at this stage for suspension of sentence mainly for the following reasons:
(a) Looking to the deposition of P.W. 4, there is prima-facie case against this appellant accused.
(b) Every act of co-conspirator tantamounts to furtherance of the conspiracy.
(c) The evidences given by other prosecution witnesses, i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 also goes against the appellant accused and the evidences of the doctors (P.W. 5, P.W.6 and P.W.7) also corroborates the fact that the prosecutrix was 16 years old at the time of occurrence. Further, it appears that deposition of P.W. 8 also corroborates the deposition of P.W. 4.
(3.)In this set of circumstances and evidences on record, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence awarded to this appellant accused by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 388 of 2006/94 of 2010.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.