DINESH BHATT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is received from jail through the Jailor, District Jail, Chamoli and is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2014, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag, in Sessions trial no. 05 of 2013, whereby accused/appellant Dinesh Bhatt was convicted under Sections 376, 363, 366A, 368 of IPC and Sections 5/6 & 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity POCSO Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. He was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act. Accused / Appellant was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each along with a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Sections 363, 366A, 368 of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire evidence on record.

(3.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that Manoj Bhatt, complainant of the case, submitted a complaint (Ext. A-1) to the Revenue SubInspector, Jakholi, Tehsil Jakholi, District Rudraprayag, on 05.07.2013, stating therein that his niece Km. 'X' (name withheld), aged 17 years, used to reside with him in Village Laladi (Baman Gaon) since last 16 years, after the death of her parents. She is being brought up by the complainant. At present, she is studying in Class XII. On 04.07,2013, at 10:00 A.M., niece of the complainant, told his wife (maternal aunt of victim) that she is going to Mayali Bazaar to purchase some articles. When the victim did not return till evening, complainant made a frantic search for her. Co-villagers Sanjay and Saurabh Bhandari told the complainant that they had seen her niece with Rajendra Singh s/o Raghubir Singh, r/o village Rahar talking to each other on 03.07.2013, in the evening, at Jakholi Bazaar Park. On hearing this, when complainant returned home he found Rs. 81,000/- along with one pair of gold rings missing from the almirah. It is stated in the complaint that he (complainant) had every apprehension that Rajendra Singh enticed away her niece, who also took the aforesaid money with her from the house at the instance of Rajendra Singh.