DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS Kripa Shankar and Dinesh are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 03.05.2011 and 11.05.2001 respectively whereby Kripa Shankar had been convicted for the offence under Sections 363/366/376 of the IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 6 months for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 366 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 6 months. For the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 6 months. Accused Dinesh had been convicted for the offence under Section 363/366 of the IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC. For the offence under Section 366 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 6 months. The sentences of both the convicts were to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.PC had been accorded to them.

(2.) THE version of the prosecution was unfolded in the testimony of the prosecutrix 'S' examined as PW -6. She had been reported missing from her house since 27.07.1999. She had been recovered on 09.08.1999. In this intervening period i.e. on 30.07.1999 a missing report had been lodged by her mother Smt. Sombiri (PW -2); initially the FIR had been registered under Section 363 of the IPC. After the recovery of the prosecutrix, her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Mr. O.P. Saini (PW -10). This was on 12.08.1999. As per her version, on the fateful day i.e. on 27.07.1999 her mother had gone out; there was no electricity; she was alone in the house; Kripa Shankar who was their tenant told her that her mother had suffered an accident and was calling her. PW -6 accompanied Kripa Shankar. When they reached near the bridge, a scooter was standing there. Co -accused Gulab and Dinesh were also there. They forcibly pulled her into the scooter after clamping her mouth with their hands; she was threatened that if she shouted, she would be killed with a knife. She was taken to Kanpur and Jhinjar. She was threatened by all of them and also Inderpal (father of Kripa Shankar). She categorically stated that Kripa Shankar had done a wrong thing with her. He brought her back to Delhi on 04.08.1999.

(3.) THE prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Geetika (PW -1). On her medical examination, hymen was found missing; her vaginal swab and undergarments had been seized. Her MLC was proved as Ex.PW -1/A.