LAXMAN JAGDISH KUSHWARA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, against the judgment and order dated 27.2.1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Sessions Case No.24 of 1996, whereby the appellantaccused was convicted for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugned judgment the appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year and ordered to pay Rs.500/ - fine for offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days was imposed. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for one year and ordered to pay fine of Rs.700/ - for offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days was imposed.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that the prosecutrix was minor at the time of the incident and on 6.3.1995, by giving a false promise to the prosecutrix that he would marry her, the accused had kidnapped the prosecutrix from the guardianship of the complainant and thereby committed an offence under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code. A complaint in this regard was given by the complainant, Mafatbhai Hirabhai Vaghela to Pandesara Police Station.

(3.) IT is submitted by Mr.Qureshi, learned advocate for the appellant that the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is quite erroneous on facts as well as on law. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record according to the well settled principle of Criminal Jurisprudence. He further submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate that there were many glaring and serious infirmities in the case of prosecution which have been very lightly brushed aside by the learned Judge which has caused failure of justice. He also submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gravely erred in convicting the present appellant u/s. 363, 366 of IPC despite the fact that the learned trial Judge has observed on page 10 that as the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to the present appellant, however, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has merely on the ground of age of the girl passed the order for conviction and that too when the age has not been proved by the prosecution.