STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. RUSTAM @ RAJU SIKENDARMIYA BALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 09.03.2005 rendered by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad, in Sessions Case No.7 of 2003. The said case was registered against the present respondent -original accused for the offences punishable under Sections -363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case, accused Rustam @ Raju Sikendamiya Balim abducted/kidnapped the daughter of the complainant namely Unnati aged about 17 years from his lawful guardianship with an intention to have illicit intercourse with her. It is the case of the prosecution that on date of incident, after about 4:00 p.m., when complainant woke up after the afternoon rest, he did not find his daughter Unnati in the house and therefore, he inquired at his elder brother's residence and also at the flour mill and nearby areas. As the complainant did not find Unnati till 7:30 p.m. he informed his wife and thereafter, both searched whereabouts of Unnati. During the search, they found one chit from the books of Unnati, which was addressed to respondent -accused. On the basis of such chit, the complainant went to house of the respondent -accused as per the address described by the complainant's younger brother. On inquiry, the complainant was informed that the accused had left home at about 2:00 p.m,. Thereafter, on second day, the complainant made inquiry about whereabouts of the accused, but all in vain. As a result of which, the complaint was filed by the complainant before the Kagdapith Police Station against the respondent -accused bearing registration No.522 of 1997. Then, investigation was carried out and statements of the witnesses were recorded. Panchnama was drawn and arrest of the respondent -accused was made. Then, charge -sheet was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.4, Ahmedabad. As the said offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.4, Ahmedabad, committed the said case to the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Ahmedabad, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.7 of 2003.

(3.) ON the basis of above allegations, charge was framed vide Exh.1 and read -over and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Sections -363 and 366 of IPC. Then, plea was recorded and respondent -accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.