MAAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23.03.2006 and the order on sentence dated 30.03.2006 passed by the Ld. ASJ in Sessions Case No. 18/2005 arising out of FIR No. 264/2005 under Section 363/366/376/34 IPC registered at Police Station Khajuri Khas. By the impugned judgment the Addl. Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 10 years besides directing him to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for 6 months.

(2.) THE factual matrix of this case are that a general diary entry No. 7A was recorded at P.S. Khajuri Khas, on the statement made by the complainant, Prem Pal (father of the prosecutrix) alleging, that on 11.06.2005 he went for his job and returned late in the evening. On returning back, his wife told him that during the day hours she had gone to market and on return found Rashmi, their daughter (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) aged about 10 years missing. It is stated by him that on being searched he could not find her daughter. He then went to the house of Durgesh, his neighbour, who used to come to his home very frequently and found him missing too. On being enquired his brother told him that Rashmi had gone for a feast in the marriage along with Durgesh. He further searched for Rashmi up to 20.06.2005. Thereafter, he lodged a missing report at P.S. Khajuri Khas on 06.07.2005, which is the basis of the present FIR. Thereafter, investigation was undertaken by the police. A police party was constituted by police and they along with Prem Pal, father of the prosecutrix, left for village Pal, from where they recovered the prosecutrix from the house of accused Maan Singh. Maan Singh was arrested and produced before a local Court & later brought to Delhi along with Rashmi. They were then medically examined at GTB Hospital, Delhi.

(3.) THE prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove their case, including the prosecutrix. Statement of accused was then recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., where he claimed innocence. According to him he has been falsely implicated in the present case because he had to return a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - to Prem Pal which amount was borrowed by him and when he failed to pay the said amount, Prem Pal had framed him in this case.