LAWS(GJH)-2016-6-174

HEMANT @ HEMU KANABHAI RATHOD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On June 30, 2016
Hemant @ Hemu Kanabhai Rathod Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order, the same are heard and being decided by way of this common CAV judgment and order.

(2.) Present appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15/12/2009, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Porbandar, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2008, whereby, while acquitting the original accused No. 3 from all the charges levelled against her and appellant - original accused No. 2 from the charge of offence punishable under Sections 376, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC'), the appellants herein - original accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to be convicted and sentenced as under:

(3.) Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 07/03/2008, the accused No. 1, a resident of village: Kantela, doing the work of rickshaw driving, allegedly kidnapped the minor daughter of complainant - Hasam Ismail Machchhufotra, aged 15 years from the lawful guardianship of the complainant and without consent, by giving false promises and temptations, firstly at his house situated at village: Kantela, where, the accused No. 3 arranged for their food and stay, allegedly committed rape on her by threatening her to kill. On the next day the accused No. 1 took her, first to village: Raval, then to Khambhaliya and after telecon with accused No. 2, who is the maternal uncle of the accused No. 1, took her to Jamnagar, where also, the accused No. 1, raped her forcibly. The accused No. 2 arranged for the stay of the duo at Khavdi at the home of maternal aunt of the accused No. 1, where the victim was introduced with false identity. The accused No. 1 and the victim stayed there for two days and then, the accused No. 1 took her to Bhanvad. The accused No. 1 gave false promise of marriage to the victim, however, the victim was allegedly confined. Thereafter, both the accused took her to an advocate, where certain formalities for marriage had been done, where also, the name of the victim was wrongly mentioned. Thus, the accused committed the alleged offence, for which a complaint came to be lodged.