RAMKESH SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Written report (Ex.P-1) on the basis of which FIR (Ex.P-11) was registered against the accused/appellant shows that on 12.07.2007 after receiving an information regarding the illness of her mother at her maternal uncle's home when she was going to see her, on the way accused/appellant met her and on being asked by him she boarded his scooter as he too was going to the same village known as Morga. The accused/appellant however took her to a house, asked her to wait outside and got back with one person who took their photographs. Thereafter, the accused/appellant is said to have taken her to an advocate for entering in marriage with her and when she showed her dissent for the same, the accused/appellant got angry and dealt a slap on her face. On the basis of this report, offences under Sections 366 and 323 IPC were registered against the accused/appellant and after completion of investigation challan was filed followed by framing of charge accordingly.

(2.) Learned Court below by the judgment impugned dated 09.07.2009 passed in Sessions Trial No.30/2008 convicted the accused/appellant under Sections 366 and 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs.500 under Section 366 and RI for 3 months under Section 323 IPC, plus clauses.

(3.) After hearing counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses in particular that of the complainant (PW-2), this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused/appellant abducted the complainant (PW-2) with an intention of forcing her to enter into a marriage with him, and for that he got the combined photograph snapped without her knowledge. On being asked by PW-2 as to why her photograph was taken with him, the accused/appellant misled her saying that it was solely of himself and not that of her. Likewise, when she declined for entering in marriage in front of the advocate, the accused lost his temper and slapped her for that. Statement of the complainant has also been supported by that of her parents PW-1 and PW-12. Since the medical examination of the complainant was done 15 days after the incident, the doctor (PW-10) did not find any injury on her body yet he has stated that she was complaining pain on her face vide report Ex.P-10. Investigating Officer has also supported the case of the prosecution.