SOMABHAI @ DHAMO RAMANBHAI ZALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal, filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Nadiad, in Sessions Case No.113 of 2009, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years, and also imposed fine of Rs.2000/ -, in default of payment of fine, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/ -, in default, to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment. Learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict and sentence the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/ -, in default, further rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Sessions Judge directed that all the sentence to run concurrently and period of sentence already undergone has been given set off.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant Shantaben Dineshbhai Solanki, is residing with her brother at Pij Vadiya Sim, Nr. Dhobi Kui, Ta. Nadiad, as her husband has expired before 7 years. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant has two daughters and one son and her elder sister has already married and settled at Dakor with her husband and her younger sister, who was 14 years old at the time of incident, studied upto Std. 2 in Primary School. Her son was studying in Std. 6 at the time of incident. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.6.2009, the complainant and her daughter went to meet her neighbour and at that time, at about 10:00 hrs. at night, the daughter i.e. victim went to drink water at her house and after sometime, the complainant also went to her house, where she found that the victim was not at the house. Therefore, she made search about her daughter, but later on, after some time, she came to know that the accused abducted her daughter by inducing to marry with her, from the legal guardianship of the complainant. It is also alleged that the accused abducted the victim with a view to make sexual intercourse with her. The victim was 14 years old at the time of incident. Therefore, the complaint was lodged being C.R. No. I 44 of 2009 before the Vaso Police Station against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 493 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THEREAFTER , necessary investigating was carried out and panchnama of seen of offence came to be drawn. Thereafter, after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer had submitted the charge -sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate. However, the as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was transferred to the Sessions Court, Nadiad, for further proceedings.