MOHD. UMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned judgment dated 23rd September, 2006, the Appellant Mohd. Umar has been convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). By the impugned order on sentence dated 25th September, 2006, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo:

(2.) THE allegation against the appellant is that he had abducted the prosecutrix aged about 12 years daughter of Ameeruddin on 7th October, 2004 and had taken her to village Saifini, district Rampur, U.P. and had repeated sexual intercourse with her. It is alleged that the prosecutrix was enticed, kidnapped and abducted from the lawful custody of her parents. It is alleged that the prosecutrix knew the appellant, who use to work in a meat shop near her house. It is alleged that the prosecutrix had stayed with the appellant from 7th October, 2004 till the night intervening 27 -28th October, 2004.

(3.) WITH regard to the name of the prosecutrix, Ameeruddin, father of the prosecutrix in his first complaint which has been marked Ex. PW -9/A had given the name of her daughter aged 12 years as 'Y'. This complaint was made on 8th October, 2004 and was registered as DD No. 6A in police station Chandni Mahal, Delhi. In the MLC, which is marked Ex. PW -7/A, the name of the prosecutrix is mentioned both as 'X' and 'Y' i.e. the name mentioned in the DD No. 6A and the other name by which the prosecutrix was called. It is the case of the prosecution that prosecutrix was known by two names. Even in the charge sheet the prosecutrix has been described by the two names. In the subsequent statements of the father under Section 161 of the Code, the prosecutrix has been described by the two names 'X' and 'Y'. The prosecutrix, who had appeared as PW -2 at the time of her examination has been described as 'X' and 'Y'. She was not cross -examined in this regard. Thus the contention of the appellant that prosecutrix was known as 'X' and not 'Y' cannot be accepted.