MANISH HARSHADBHAI SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant challenges the conviction awarded by the learned trial Court in Sessions Case No.115 of 2008. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anand was pleased to convict the present appellant for the offence under Sections 365, 376 and 506(2) of IPC. Learned trial court has imposed sentence of imprisonment for the period of 7 years for the offence under Section 376 of IPC, sentence of imprisonment for the period of 2 years for the offence under Section 365 of IPC and sentence of imprisonment for the period of 1 year for the offence under Section 506(2) of IPC. All the sentences are simple imprisonment. Further, the trial court has ordered that all the sentences be run concurrently.

(2.) SHORTLY stated facts are thus : The victim had filed a complaint on 19.01.2008. She says that on previous date i.e. 18.01.2008, she left her house to attend the school. In her way to school, the present appellant caught hold of her hand and forcibly taken her in one rickshaw. The appellant thereafter, had said to have asked rickshaw to take them to Verakhadi. They came near Verakhadi at river Mahisagar. They stopped there and appellant had said to have made proposal to the victim for marriage. Victim had said to have denied. Thereafter, they said to have came at Tulsi talkies of Anand in another rickshaw. Fromthere, they said to have been to Chaklasi village in an another rickshaw. At Chaklasi, the appellant said to have taken the victim to the residence of appellant's relative. There, one advocate was called for. Talks of marriage had taken place there and victim had said to have denied for marriage. Victim alleged that advocate had left the house saying that victim's age is not of marriageable age. The relative of the appellant had said to have asked the appellant to leave their house. Thereafter, the appellant had said to have brought the victim to nearby field. It is say of the victim that in the field the appellant had committed forcibly sexual intercourse with her. Thereafter, they came to village Chaklasi in one rickshaw. They came to railway station and then Nadiad. From Nadiad they came back to Anand. At Anand Station, as the appellant had left the victim for sometime, at that time one Diwanbhai who is neighbourer of the victim's family had said to have came there and he had said to have stated to the victim that her parents are worrying about her. Victim accompanied Diwanbhai and came back to her parents house. Lateron she came to police station along with her father and had lodged the complaint.

(3.) HEARD the learned advocate Ms.Rekha H Kapadia, for the appellant and Ms.H.B.Punani, learned APP for the State ­ respondent.