JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THESE appeals arise out of a common judgement of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, in Sessions case no.195/2009. The accused was charged with offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC. He was convicted for such offences. For offence under section 376, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. For offence under section 363, he was sentenced to three years and for offence under section 366, he was sentenced to four years. Fines were also imposed. Substantive sentences were to run concurrently. The appellant therefore, preferred Criminal Appeal No.1046/2011 challenging his conviction and sentence. The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.989/2011 seeking enhancement in the sentence.
(2.)BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution version was that the accused aged about 28 years was residing in the neighbourhood of Sunanda, the first informant. Her husband had deserted her many years back. She was residing with her children, one of them being the victim. She was aged about 14 years on the date of incident. She used to visit the house of the accused sometimes for cleaning work. Taking advantage of such familiarity, the accused raped her couple of days prior to 18.5.2009. On 18.5.2009, the accused took the victim to Mumbai by train where they resided for a few days before returning home. The mother of the victim had filed missing person's report on 18.5.2009 itself. When her daughter returned, after ascertaining the facts from her, she filed the complaint before the police.
(3.)CHARGE was framed at exh.4, in which it was alleged that the accused had kidnapped the minor daughter of the complainant on 18.5.2009 with intention of forcing her into marriage. He had also committed sexual intercourse with her and thereby committed offences punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC.
The first informant, Sunanda Pandurang, PW4, exh.18 deposed that her husband had deserted her since 14 to 15 years. She had four daughters. The prosecutrix was aged 13 and 1/2 years. She was studying in 8th standard. At the time of the incident, the school was on vacation. The accused lived just one house away from hers with his wife and children. Being a neighbour, her daughter used to visit the house of the accused. At 10 O' clock in the morning, the victim had gone to the stitching class but did not return till 12 O' clock. She therefore, looked for her at her friends' place. She approached the police who advised her to first look at the relatives place and come later. Next day, when the girl was still not found, she went to the police who recorded her statement which was produced at exh.19. Four or five days later the accused had dropped her daughter home at which time she was at work. When inquired with the daughter she told her that the accused had taken her to Bombay and had also complained about sexual intercourse he had with the daughter. She therefore, filed complaint before the police which was produced at exh.20. She produced at exh.21, the birth date certificate issued by the school where the victim was studying which showed her date of birth as 5.7.1995.
4.1. In the cross examination, she stated that she had herself gone to admit the victim in the school where her date of birth was noted down in the form.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.