LAWS(CHH)-2022-11-72

VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On November 17, 2022
VINOD KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.08.2006 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Camp Court, Gariyabandh, District Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 187/2006 whereby and whereunder, learned Judge acquitted the appellant of Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and convicted him under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years plus fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, at the time of incident i.e. on 29.01.2006 prosecutrix was aged about 16 years who started residing at her aunt's (Maosi) house at Village Raka some days prior to the incident. On the date of incident she came to her Village Kopra from there she went somewhere without giving information to her parents. On that, father of prosecutrix namely Puranik Sahu searched his daughter and came to know that appellant forcefully abducted her and kept her in his home. On 31.01.2006, he lodged a report at Police Station Rajim about the incident and, on that basis, police personnel rushed to the appellant's house, the prosecutrix was recovered from his house and Recovery Panchnama (Ex. P/1) was prepared. An FIR (Ex.P/2) was registered against the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and after Consent (Ex.P/3) of her father, prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. After receiving Medical Examination Reports of prosecutrix (Ex. P/10) and appellant (Ex.P/7) respectively, and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and charges were framed under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited total 17 documents. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges leveled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.