ANIL S/O NANHEY Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2010 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Session Trial No. 308 of 2003, whereby appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- , and in default of making payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of six months.

(2.) As per the prosecution story, PW1 Mahesh Pal, father of the prosecutrix, lodged a report on 26.07.2003 stating therein he alongwith other family members resides at Mohalla Rampura, Ward No.6, Rudrapur. He has a daughter Nisha aged about 15 years; accused Dharmendra S/o Chhotey and one Anil S/o Nanhey had evil eye on his daughter; though the complainant tried to make them understand, but to no avail; both of them, in the intervening night of 25/26.07.2003 at about 4:00 a.m. enticed Km. Nisha-minor and took her somewhere; the complainant kept on searching, but whereabouts of the girl could not be found out; both were also not at their home. It was reported that Ramesh S/o Ram Swaroop and Lal Ji S/o Chhiddan (PW-8) resident of Rampura, saw them taking his daughter. On the basis of the written complaint, a case crime number 929 of 2003 under Section 363 and 366 I.P.C. was registered against both the co-accused.

(3.) It is important to mention here that after investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant as well as co-accused Dharmendra. Pursuant to the chargesheet filed, Session Trial No. 53 of 2004 was commenced against the Co-accused and Session Trial No. 308 of 2003 was commenced against the appellant Anil. Both the trials were held together and both the accused were held guilty. Appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C. whereas co-accused Dharmendra was held guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. Co-accused Dharmendra has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2010 before this Court while appellant has preferred present Criminal Appeal.