KISHAN YADAV Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the judgment of conviction dtd. 8/9/2016 and order on sentence dtd. 26/12/2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in SC No. 32/2/14 convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 366 of the IPC and for the offence punishable under Sec. 6 read with Sec. 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred as 'POCSO Act'). The appellant has been sentenced to undergo five years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 366 of the IPC alongwith payment of fine of Rs.2,000.00 and was further sentenced to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sec. 6 read with Sec. 5(l) of the POCSO Act alongwith payment of fine of Rs.3,000.00. In default of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo three months of simple imprisonment for each of the offences. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit of Sec. 428 of the Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 9/8/2016, the father of the prosecutrix appeared before the Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi, and had stated that he was a labourer and was residing with his family at House No. 58, Gali No.2, Nanli Vihar, Nangli Dairy, Najafgarh, Delhi. According to him, the appellant was residing in his house on rent in the year 2012 and within a month, the appellant vacated the said house. He further stated that his daughter (prosecutrix) aged about 15 years, was enticed by the appellant on 11/6/2013 and thereafter kidnapped by him. Later on, the complainant's daughter informed the complainant about her location at Village Rautpur. The complainant alongwith his wife went there and had taken back the prosecutrix to their house. He further stated that on 16/7/2013 again, the appellant had taken away his daughter/prosecutrix from the school to Village Rautpur, District, Gorakhpur. The complainant goes on to state that he alongwith his wife reached Village Rautpur, District Gorakhpur on 28/7/2013, where, they found that their daughter was residing with the appellant and the appellant had promised to send her back on the following day. The father of the prosecutrix and her mother, both stayed for a night at Village Rautpur and on the following day, the appellant refused to send their daughter back with them. Therefore, after coming back from the Village, the complainant went to the Police Station on 9/8/2013 to lodge the report.

(3.) The police on the basis of the information received, registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. After collecting evidence and recording statement of the witnesses, the appellant was arrested and after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed. The trial court vide order dtd. 5/4/2014 framed the charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Ss. 366/506 of the IPC and under Sec. 6 read with Sec. 5(l) of the POCSO Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial court, thereafter, conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned above.