STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PRADIPBHAI VIJAYBHAI BHIL (DHOBI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Gujarat, by way of filing the present appeal, before this Court has questioned the impugned judgment and order dated 20.01.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Ahmedabad City in Sessions Case No. 286 of 2005 whereby the original accused has been acquitted for the offence under section 366 & 376 of Indian Penal Code. The original accused however has been convicted under section 363 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and five months and fine of Rs. 500/- in default rigorous imprisonment for one month. The trial court granted benefit of set off. The present appeal is filed against the order of acquittal under sections 366 & 376 of IPC.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that 03.09.2004, the complainant and his wife had gone to sleep in the afternoon and thereafter at about 03.00 pm when the wife of complainant inquired about the daughter of complainant prosecutrix at her friend's house, she was not there. Thereafter, even after frantic searches the prosecutrix could not be traced. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant visited the house of the respondent who used to work with the complainant and found the house of respondent locked. It is further the case of the prosecution that the respondent accused had abducted his daughter and therefore a complaint was lodged accordingly and pursuant to the complaint, investigation was carried out. After investigation, chargesheet was filed and as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the Court of Sessions. The trial Court framed charge against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

(3.) Ms. CM Shah, learned APP appearing for the State has submitted that the trial court committed an error in acquitting the respondent-accused under Sections 366 & 376 of IPC. It was contended by Ms. Shah, that the judgement and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. She submitted that from the evidence of P.W. 1 who is the principal of the school in which the victim was studying, the complainant, the wife of complainant and the documentary evidence such as school register, medical certificate etc, it is clear that the accused is guilty of the alleged offence as the victim was under 16 years of age.