JAYPAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC), has been preferred by accused Jaypal, challenging the judgment and order dated 6.5.2005, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/II F.T.C., Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 329/2003, State v. Jaypal, whereby accused Jaypal has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo imprisonment for one year. He has also been convicted under Section 364 IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, to undergo three months' imprisonment. He has further been convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, to undergo three months' imprisonment. The Appellant Jaypal has also been convicted under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default, to undergo three months' imprisonment. All the substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE criminal law was set in motion on application Ex. Ka -1 submitted by PW1 Smt. Anita, mother of the prosecutrix (name withheld, and hereinafter referred to as 'X'). According to the complainant, she was working as Safai Karamchari in Riverdale International School, Bazpur. On 18.8.2003 at about 4 pm, her daughter 'X', aged about 10 years, was playing at her house, when accused Jaypal came there and took her daughter towards the jungle on the pretext of cutting woods. Some other children, namely, Arun and Pooja were also playing with her daughter 'X'. They were sent away by accused Jaypal. When complainant came back at her house at about 6 pm, she did not find her daughter in the house. She was informed by Arun and Pooja that her daughter had been taken away by Jaypal. Her daughter 'X' was seen in the company of Jaypal by PW2 Mahesh and PW5 Dharmveer, when she was being taken away by accused. Complainant searched for her daughter, but she could not be traced. She suspected that Jaypal might have killed her daughter.

(3.) ON completion of the investigation, challan was presented and accused was charge sheeted under Section 302/201 IPC, 364 IPC and 376 read with Section 511 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.