ARTI Vs. N C T OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge (in Sessions Case No.22/2000) along with one Shivraj Gupta alias Gappu on the charge for offences punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 328 read with Section 120 B IPC and Section 363 read with 120 B IPC on the gravamen that she had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the said other person (i.e. Shivraj) and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy administered sweets with intoxicating substance to the prosecutrix, a girl aged about 14 years at that point of time, to facilitate the commission of offence of she being kidnapped; the said girl having been kidnapped by Shivraj from the lawful guardianship of her father (PW-2), on or about 30.03.1999, from the hutments (jhuggi cluster) in the locality known as Indira Market, Naraina, New Delhi. The other said person Shivraj was put on trial on the additional charge for offence under Section 376 IPC, on the allegations that after having kidnapped the said girl, he had subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse during the period 30.03.1999 to 10.04.1999 at Delhi and other places, the prosecutrix, as per the evidence presented, having been recovered from his house on 10.04.1999 in Shahjahanpur in Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) By judgment dated 31.10.2001, the appellant herein was held guilty and convicted on the charge for offence under Section 363 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 328 read with Section 34 IPC; Shivraj Gupta having been held guilty and convicted separately on charges for offences under Sections 363, 328, 376 and 34 IPC. By order on sentence dated 01.11.2001, the trial judge awarded imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, and imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.3,000/- for offences under Section 363 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 328 read with Section 34 IPC respectively.

(3.) The above mentioned judgment of conviction and order on sentence were challenged by the appellant through the present appeal. The sentence having earlier been suspended by order dated 22.02.2002, the appeal was not prosecuted, she having failed to appear on it being called out. She has since resurfaced and was taken into custody, she having forfeited the order of suspension of sentence on account of the earlier default.