MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -Mukesh Kumar impugns a judgment dated 16.10.2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.24/2002 arising out of FIR No.11/2002 registered at Police Station Vasant Kunj by which he was held guilty for committing offence under Section 376 IPC. By an order dated 23.10.2004, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 4,000/ -.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the appellant as reflected in the chargesheet were that on 06.01.2002 he kidnapped the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged about 16 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent and sexually assaulted her thereafter. Daily Dairy (DD) No.36/A (Ex.PW.13/A) came into existence on 06.01.2002 at Police Station Vasant Kunj when intimation about 'X' missing from her house was lodged. The investigation was assigned to SI Naubat Singh. On 07.01.2002 'X' was recovered and after recording her statement, the investigating officer lodged first information report (Ex.PW -5/A). The prosecutrix was medically examined. She recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Statements of witnesses were recorded; the accused was arrested; and exhibits were sent to forensic science laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the appellant for committing offence under Sections 363/366/376 IPC. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to establish his guilt. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction under Section 376 IPC. It is relevant to note that he was acquitted of the charges under Section 366/363 IPC. The State did not challenge the said acquittal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) DURING the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of the trial court on conviction under Section 376 PC. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has remained in custody for about two years. He has since been married and has two small kids to take care of. Learned APP has no objection to take lenient view considering the mitigating circumstances.