HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Convicted for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/376 IPC
Raj Kumar challenges the impugned judgment dated July 17, 2013 and the
order on sentence of even date directing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of `50,000/- for
offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a
period of five years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- each for offences
punishable under Sections 420 IPC and 468 IPC.
2. Assailing the conviction, learned counsel for Raj Kumar contends that
from the evidence on record, it can be inferred that the prosecutrix knew
about the previous marriage of the appellant, thus, there was no deception.
There are inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecutrix. The appellant
is an illiterate person and did not know English. The affidavit was in
English and his signatures were obtained under the influence of some
CRL.A.1187/2013 Page 1 of 7
stupefying substance. The prosecutrix admitted in her testimony that she was
neighbour of the appellant and the deceased husband of the prosecutrix was
friend of the appellant, thus, it cannot be said that the prosecutrix did not
know about the previous marriage of the appellant. In the complaints, there
were allegations only with respect to outraging her modesty and the
allegation of rape was afterthought and a material improvement. Lastly, DW-
1 sister-in-law of the prosecutrix, stated that the prosecutrix was fully aware
that the appellant was a married man and she even attended his wedding.
Source: Indian Kanoon