Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 487 (ALL)

NAWAB SINGH ALIAS RAM SINGH v. STATE OF U P

2001-05-15

U.S.TRIPATHI

body2001
U. S. TRIPATHI, J. This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 3-7-84 passed by HI Addl. Ses sions Judge, Kanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 12-M of 1984, dismissing the appeal of the applicant and confirming his convic tion under Section 377 IPC and sentence of six months RI and fine of Rs. 400 gassed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagaron 18-1-84 in Criminal Case No. 754 of 1981. 2. The prosecution story, briefly stated, was that on 28-4-81 at about 5. 00 p. m. Deepak P. W. 1 a boy of about 7 years of age had gone to ease at Nahamva. The applicant Nawab Singh met him there. He took the victim to a house which was vacant and there he committed unnatural offence (sodomy) on him. The boy raised alarm and the applicant gagged his mouth and after committing offence he ran away. The boy remained there lying semi-uncon scious on the ground and when he started weeping Kanhaiya came there and took him to his shop and informed his uncle Bhag Chand P. W. 2 who lodged the report of the occurrence at police station Juhi. On the basis of the report a case under Section 377 1pc was registered against the accused-applicant. The boy was sent for medical examination and the doctor prepared a medical report. The police after investigation submitted a charge sheet against the applicant. 3. The applicant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. He denied the prosecution allegations and contended that he was falsely implicated. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined Deepak, P. W. 1, Bhag Chand, P. W. 2, Shanti Swamp, P. W. 3, Maiku, P. W. 4 and Dr. H. N. Sharma, P. W. 5. The learned Magistrate on considering the evidence of the prosecution held that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. With this finding he convicted and sentenced the applicant as mentioned above. 5. Aggrieved with the above convic tion and sentence the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 12-M of 1984. The appeal was heard by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur, who vide his order dated 3-7-84 held that on considering the entire evidence and facts and circumstances of the case the lower Court has rightly con victed the appellant under Section 377 IPC. Aggrieved with the above convic tion and sentence the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 12-M of 1984. The appeal was heard by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur, who vide his order dated 3-7-84 held that on considering the entire evidence and facts and circumstances of the case the lower Court has rightly con victed the appellant under Section 377 IPC. Accordingly he dismissed the appeal. 6. The above order of the appellate Court has been challenged in this revision. 7. Previously the applicant was repre sented by Sri Keshav Sahai, Advocate, who expired. A notice was issued to the ap plicant to engage another counsel. The above notice was served on him through his wife Asha Devi on 27-11-2000. There after, the applicant did not engage any Counsel, nor appeared before the Court. 8. Heard learned AGA and perused the record. 9. The learned Sessions Judge reap praised the evidence of victim Deepak P. W. 1, as well as the evidence of the Doctor. The oral testimony of the victim was fully supported by Dr. Sharma, P. W. 5 and it was proved by the medical evidence that un natural offence was committed on the vic tim. Though the victim was the sole wit ness of. the occurrence but he was aged about 7-8 years and attained maturity to state as to wha i happened against him. The appellate Court also found that statement of the victim did not show that he was tutored and the evidence of the victim also found corroboration from the medical evidence and the statement of Bhag Chand P. W. 2. Thus the trial Court as well as the appellate Court did not commit any illegality and irregularity in relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and holding that prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. 10. So far as the quantum of punish ment is concerned the trial Court had al ready taken lenient view by awarding six months RI only. 11. The revision, therefore, has no force and it is accordingly dismissed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Sessions Judge and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar for compliance and report. Revision dismissed. .