STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AKHTARKHAN ABDULSATTARKHAN PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 0. As all these Appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Sabarkantha at Modasa (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 166/2006, all these Appeals are heard, decided and disposed of together by this common judgment and order.

(2.) 0. At the outset it is required to be noted that by the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has convicted original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Ss. 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code and has imposed the punishment/sentence of three years and six months Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default to undergo further six months Rigorous Imprisonment. However, the learned trial Court has acquitted original accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Ss. 363 and 366 of the IPC. As observed herein above, as such, the learned trial Court has convicted original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 read with Sec. 511 of the IPC. By the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court has acquitted original accused No. 2 for the offence punishable under Sections, 363, 366, 376, 368 read with Sec. 114 of the IPC. Hence, Criminal Appeal No. 1796/2008 has been preferred by the appellant -State of Gujarat under Sec. 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enhance the punishment/sentence imposed by the learned trial Court while convicting original accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sec. 376 read with Sec. 511 of the IPC.

(3.) 0. It was the case of the prosecution as mainly emerging from the First Information Report was that the first informant, namely, Akhatarali Akbarali Siayed is the father of a girl, namely, Falaknaz, who is residing at Samehidayat Society, Dhdharwada Road, Modasa. It was alleged that the daughter of the first informant was studying in Standard X at Madni High School and on 21/08/2006, during recess hours, his daughter had come to the house of the complainant for taking snacks. It was alleged that on that day at around 2 o' clock in the noon, the daughter of the complainant left for the school on a bicycle and since 5:00 hours in the evening as she did not return back to home, the complainant, his son Irfan and complainant's wife started inquiring the whereabouts of his daughter but in vain. It was alleged that thereafter one Taufiq Mohammad Rafiq Farkiwala and Akram Sabbirbhai Soni met the complainant opposite Milan Decoration on Dudharwada Road and upon asking them, the complainant came to know that on 21/08/2006 at about 2:30 hours, in the noon, the appellant herein and complainant's daughter Falaknaz were chatting with each other inside an autorickshaw and thereafter they were seen going towards Dudharwada Road. Thereafter, the complainant made the inquiries at different places but could not locate them. Thereafter, on 25/08/2006, after lapse of almost 5 days, and FIR came to be registered against the appellant herein, initially, for the offences under Sec. 363 and 366 of the IPC.