LAWS(DLH)-2017-12-437

SUNIL KHAN @ GUDDU @ NIYAJ Vs. STATE

Decided On December 20, 2017
Sunil Khan @ Guddu @ Niyaj Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal assailing the judgment dated 18th August, 2010 and order on sentence dated 23rd August, 2010 whereby he has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 363/366/376 IPC and sentenced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_437_LAWS(DLH)12_2017_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The case FIR No.397/2008 was registered on the basis of the complaint made by Sh.Chander Prakash, father of the prosecutrix. In the complaint Ex.PW-1/A he reported that he was residing at Krishan Vihar, Delhi along with his family consisting of one son and three daughters. His youngest daughter 'K' (name withheld to conceal her identity) aged 13 years had left the house on 13th June, 2008 at 6:30 AM without informing anyone and had not returned thereafter. He tried to search for her with his relatives but on not being able to find her, he reported the matter to the police. After giving the description of 'K' the prosecutrix, he also expressed suspicion on the appellant/convict Guddu @ Sunil Khan @ Niyaj to be the person who might have enticed away/kidnapped his daughter and that Guddu was also missing from his house.

(3.) After registration of the case, efforts were made to search 'K' and Guddu. On 5th February, 2009, both 'K' and the convict were located at railway station Lucknow. When the convict was apprehended and 'K' was recovered, they disclosed their relationship to be as husband and wife. They also produced the proof of marriage i.e. Nikahnama and marriage agreement. Both of them were sent for medical examination. Thereafter, 'K' was produced for getting her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Since 'K' refused to accompany her parents and insisted to live with her husband (convict), being minor, she was sent to Nari Niketan. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed. Since the age of 'K', as per school record, was below the consenting age, the convict was charged for committing offence punishable under Section 363/366/376 IPC.