NARESH KUMAR SATNAMI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.4.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Korba in Sessions Trial No. 80/2007 convicting him under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine of Rs. 2000 u/s 363, rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs. 3000 u/s 366 and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and pay fine of Rs. 5000 u/s 376 IPC, plus default stipulations.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that on 29.4.1997 a report (unexhibited) was lodged by father of the prosecutrix namely Dashrath (PW-2) alleging that his daughter (the prosecutrix PW-3 herein) went missing since 27.4.1997 and that she had also taken with her a suitcase containing her clothes. On 10.11.1997 she is said to have been recovered from the house of present appellant and then FIR Ex. P-2 was registered on the same day at the instance of her father namely Dashrath (PW-2) to that effect. In the FIR it is stated that on 27.4.1997 prosecutrix aged about 14 years and studying in class VII at the relevant time had left the house without informing anyone and that during search on 10.11.1997 she was recovered from the house of the accused/appellant and on being asked she informed him that the present appellant and co-accused Raj Kumar had allured her away to Delhi and after keeping her there for one month they took her to Salihabhata where she was kept by the appellant in his house by putting her under threat. Based on this FIR offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC were registered against the both the accused persons. Case diary statement of the prosecutrix was recorded on 10.11.1997 and on the same day she was medically examined by Dr. (Smt.) S. Sisodia (PW-1) and after completion of investigation challan was filed by the police on 26.12.1995 for the offences under Sections 376, 363 and 366 IPC.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. After recording the statements of the witnesses but before recording the statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. present appellant absconded and after his surrender, the trial proceeded and impugned judgment came to be passed convicting and sentencing him as mentioned above in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal.