Wed. Apr 21st, 2021

Pawan Kumar @ Deepu vs State on 12 June, 2017

1 min read

The facts emerging from impugned judgment are already noted in
detail in the opening paragraphs of impugned judgment and need no
reproduction. Suffice to note that as per prosecutrix (PW-1), her age was
15½ years on the day of incident i.e. on 16 th April, 2011. Apart from
evidence of prosecutrix (PW-1), there is evidence of parents (PW-3 &
PW-4) of prosecutrix, medical evidence and the other evidence, on which
trial court has relied while discarding appellant’s plea of false implication
and has convicted and sentenced appellant as noticed hereinabove.
At the outset, learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant
on the day of incident i.e. 16th April, 2011, was in his early twenties and
was unmarried. It is also submitted that appellant is a poor person, and a
sole bread-earner of his family and that he is not involved in any other
case and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory and so, the sentence
awarded to appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already
undergone by him.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply