Nawab Singh @ Ram Singh vs State of U.P.

U.S. Tripathi, J.

This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 3784 passed by HI Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Criminal Appeal No. 12M of 1984, dismissing the appeal of the applicant and confirming his conviction under Section 377 IPC and sentence of six months RI and fine of Rs. 400 gassed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagaron 18184 in Criminal Case No. 754 of 1981.

The prosecution story, briefly stated, was that on 28481 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 semiunconscious 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 accusedapplicant. 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.

The applicant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 377 IPC. He denied the prosecution allegations and contended that he was falsely implicated.

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.

Aggrieved with the above conviction and sentence the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 12M of 1984. The appeal was heard by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur, who vide his order dated 3784 held that on considering the entire evidence and facts and circumstances of the case the lower Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 377 IPC. Accordingly he dismissed the appeal.

The above order of the appellate Court has been challenged in this revision.

Previously the applicant was represented by Sri Keshav Sahai, Advocate, who expired. A notice was issued to the applicant to engage another counsel. The above notice was served on him through his wife Asha Devi on 27112000. Thereafter, the applicant did not engage any Counsel, nor appeared before the Court.

Heard learned AGA and perused the record.

The learned Sessions Judge reappraised 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 unnatural offence was committed on the victim. Though the victim was the sole witness of .the occurrence but he was aged about 78 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.

So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned the trial Court had already taken lenient view by awarding six months RI only.

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.