GUDDU RAM Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated 24.08.2012 and order on sentence dated 27.08.2012 in Session Case No. 51/12 arising out of FIR No. 17/11, P.S. Palam village, vide which the appellant was convicted for offences u/s. 363/366 IPC and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for offence punishable u/s. 363 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ -, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for offence u/s. 366 IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. The convict was granted benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, in nutshell, is that the complainant Arjun Mehto made a complaint regarding kidnapping of his sister 'X' (hereinafter referred as Prosecutrix) and stated that he along with his family was residing at Plot No. 188, Murga Farm, Nasir Pur Road, Near Gali No. 5, Mahavir enclave, New Delhi and was a scrapper by profession. He further reported that his sister was enticed away by one Guddu Ram on 15.01.2011 at about 8 p.m. when she was washing utensils. It is this statement which culminated in registration of FIR u/s. 363 IPC. During the course of investigation, age proof of the prosecutrix was collected by SI Chand Singh from M.C. Primary School Girls, Mangla Puri, according to which, date of birth of prosecutrix was 15.06.1999. On 14.02.2011, information was received that accused along with the prosecutrix had been apprehended, as such SI Chand Singh along with police officials and complainant Arjun Mehto went to village Korari, Bihar. Accused along with prosecutrix was found there. On enquiry, accused Guddu produced marriage certificate and affidavit. Accused was arrested. Accused and prosecutrix were brought to Delhi. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. After completing investigation, charge -sheet was submitted against the accused.

(3.) IN order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined eleven witnesses. The case of accused was one of denial simplicitor when all the incriminating evidence was put to him while recording his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C. He did not prefer to lead any evidence.