MAAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 18.08.2011 passed in Sessions Case No.134/01 arising out of FIR No.125/02 under Sections 363/366/372/373/376/120B/109/34 IPC registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden by which the appellant Maan Singh was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 368/120-B/376 IPC. By an order dated 20.08.2011, he was awarded SI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 368 IPC; SI for six months with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 120B IPC; and SI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376 IPC. All the substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Accused Santra (since expired), Bhateri (Proclaimed Offender) and Rajesh (Proclaimed Offender), Akhtari, Maan Singh (the appellant) and Kumari Baby were charge-sheeted for the commission of the aforesaid offences. The case was registered on the statement of one Santra under Section 363 of IPC regarding missing of two girls. Later on, one of the prosecutrix was recovered and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Sections 363/366/372/373/376/120B were added. The accused persons were arrested. After recording statement of witnesses conversant with the facts, a charge-sheet was filed against them. Charges were framed under various sections to which contesting accused persons pleaded not guilty. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses in all. In 313 statement, the contesting accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. DW- 1 (Naresh) and DW-2 (Mohd.Mustaffa) were examined in defence. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the trial court by the impugned judgment acquitted accused Kumari Baby of all the charges. Accused Akhtari though convicted under Section 366 IPC and Section 120-B IPC, was acquitted under Section 376 IPC read with Section 120B IPC; Sections 373/372 IPC and Section 109 IPC read with Section 376 IPC. The appellant Maan Singh was acquitted under Section 373 IPC but was convicted under Sections 368, 120B IPC and 376 IPC. Allegations against him were that he was aware about the sale of 'X' and confined her in his house for about a month. During this period, he sexually assaulted her.

(3.) During the course of arguments, on instructions, the appellant's counsel stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of the trial court on conviction. He, however, prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellant has remained in custody for substantial period and is not a previous convict. To this, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection if mitigating circumstances are taken into consideration.