RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal Ram Niwas challenges the impugned judgment dated 25th July, 2013 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 363 and 376 IPC in FIR No. 143/2010 registered at PS Janakpuri and the order on sentence dated 26th July, 2013 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Sections 323 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Sections 363 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.

(2.) Briefly the prosecution case is that in the intervening night of 26th and 27th June, 2010 at 1.55 A.M., DD No. 4A was received stating that a four year girl has been kidnapped from WZ -50 Posangipur, near C -2 bus stand by a twelve year old boy. On receipt of the DD entry, SI Prem Singh and W/SI Renuka PW -22 reached the spot and started making enquiries from the parents of the prosecutrix. In the meantime, Ct. Sudhir PW -11, who was on patrolling duty in that area, telephonically received the information regarding missing of a four year old girl. He went to the police station on his motorcycle to take the torch for the purpose of searching the girl. While on way he reached at A -5A Janta Flat, Double Storey in front of statue of Ambedkar he saw the appellant suspiciously standing. After seeing the police motorcycle, the appellant started walking towards the drain. When Ct. Sudhir went towards him, he saw that the appellant was hiding a child in his lap. On enquiry, the appellant could not give any satisfactory answer. Thus, he brought the child along with the appellant to the police station. The name of the appellant was revealed as Ram Niwas. PW -11 also stated that there was blood on the undergarment of the prosecutrix. PW -1 Smt. Radha @ Dhanno and PW -2 Deshraj @ Devi Gulam also reached the police station on the receipt of information that the prosecutrix has been found. On the basis of the statement of Ct. Sudhir, FIR No. 143/2010 was registered under Sections 363/376 IPC. Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. The prosecutrix and the appellant were medically examined at DDU Hospital.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the PCR call Ex. PW - 17/A was made by a third person who has not been examined by the prosecution. No neighbour was made a witness. PW -11 Ct. Sudhir stated in his testimony that he had seen the appellant with a bag however no such bag was seized in personal search of the appellant. Further, PW -2 stated that the appellant was wearing a check shirt and a black pant, however, neither these clothes were identified by anyone nor were they sent to CFSL. Furthermore, PW -2, father of the prosecutrix stated that the prosecutrix was bleeding from head and legs but there was no external injury as per the MLC. Further as per the parents of the prosecutrix, they reached the police station at 2.00 AM whereas Ct. Sudhir stated that parents reached the police station at 5.00 AM. Despite being apprehended at 2.18 AM, the appellant was arrested only at 9.00 AM.