CHHOTEY LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed on behalf of the appellant under Sec. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "CrPC") against the judgment dtd. 9/1/2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned judgement") and against the Order-on-Sentence dtd. 10/1/2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order on sentence") passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court") in Sessions Case bearing No. 118/2005 arising out of the FIR bearing No. 361/2004 registered at Police Station - Khajuri Khas.

(2.) The appellant vide the impugned judgement was held guilty for committing the offence punishable under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the "IPC").The appellant vide the impugned order on sentence dtd. 10/1/2008 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years along with a fine of Rs.1,000.00, and in default of payment of fine, convict was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ten days.

(3.) Briefly stated, the prosecution's case as reflected from the chargesheet is that the prosecutrix, aged about 18-19 years, was residing with her parents at Sadat Pur Extension, Delhi, where her father, Shyam Bihari Pandey (PW4), was running an STD booth. The prosecutrix used to sit at the shop and was acquainted with the appellant - Chhotey Lal, who lived in the same locality and frequently visited the booth. On 2/9/2004, at about 10:40 PM, the prosecutrix left her house and did not return. Simultaneously, the appellant was also found missing from his residence. On 11/9/2004, PW-4 lodged a complaint with the police naming the appellant, pursuant to which the FIR was registered at Police Station, Khajuri Khas under Ss. 366 and 376 of IPC. The prosecution case is that the appellant enticed the prosecutrix and took her to various places including Balaji, Jaipur, Sonepat, Chandigarh and Kangra (Himachal Pradesh), where he established sexual relations with her repeatedly. It is alleged that the prosecutrix accompanied him under fear, as he threatened to kill her brother, in case she raised an alarm and also on the false promise of marriage. The prosecutrix remained with the appellant for nearly six months and assisted him in his cane furniture work at Kangra. Later, she discovered that the appellant was already married with six children. On 5/3/2005, the appellant along with the prosecutrix was apprehended at Sarai Kale Khan ISBT, Delhi by the police at the instance of PW-2, Satya Prakash, uncle of the prosecutrix. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix had been medically examined. Her statement under Sec. 164 of CrPC which is Ex PW-3/A, has been recorded before the learned Magistrate. The appellant was thereafter arrested and examined medically.