STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DEPAK NATUBHAI THAKOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No.118/2010 dated 05.01.2012 by the learned 7th Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur whereby, respondent no.1, original accused no.1, was convicted for the offences punishable u/s.363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") whereas, respondent no.2, original accused no.2, was convicted for the offences punishable u/s.363 & 366 r/w. Section 114 IPC. For conviction u/s.363 IPC, accused no.1 was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.250/- and in case of default, RI for a further period of ten days. For conviction u/s.366 IPC, accused no.1 was sentenced to undergo RI for six months and fine of Rs.250/- and in case of default, RI for a further period of ten days; and for conviction u/s. 376 IPC, accused no.1 was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default, RI for a further period of one month. For conviction u/s.363 & 366 IPC, accused no.2 was sentenced to undergo RI for fifteen days and fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default, RI for a further period of ten days. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The sentence already undergone by accused was given set-off.

(2.) The facts in brief are as under; It is the prosecution case that complainant Natubhai was residing along with his family consisting of his wife and four children near Trimurti Hospital, Bavla. On 17.12.2009 at around 0300 hrs., Hansaben, the wife of complainant, woke up and noticed that one of their daughters, aged around 15 years, was not on her bed. She informed the complainant about it. Necessary search was carried out. When inquired with accused no.2, he informed that his daughter had been sent by him with accused no.1. A complaint in connection with the above offence was lodged and necessary investigation was carried out.

(3.) Learned APP appearing for the appellant State has submitted that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the respondent-accused since there were ample direct and indirect evidence on record to connect the respondent-accused with the crime. She further submitted that trial Court has failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective.