HITESH ARVINDBHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal assails the judgment and order dated 10/03/2006, passed by the learned Special Judge, Narmada in POCSO No. 12 of 2015, whereby, while acquitting the original accused No. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity, 'the IPC') and Sections 2(1)(d), 5(1) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for brevity, 'the POCSO Act'), and present appellant - original accused No. 1 from the offences punishable under Section 363 and 366 of the I.P.C., he (the appellant - original accused No. 1) came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo, further imprisonment for two months. The appellant - accused No. 1 was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently. Whereas, Criminal Misc. Application No. 17213 of 2016 has been filed by the applicant appellant - original accused No. 1 under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') for suspension of sentence pending the present appeal.

(2.) Filtering the unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that, on 28/11/2014, when the complainant returned home in evening, his minor daughter was not present at the home and on asking to his wife about her, she stated to have gone for answering the nature's call, however, since, she did not return, enquiry was made. On enquiry with Nilamben, the niece of the complainant, she stated to have seen the victim with the accused No. 1 on his bike. The accused No. 1 was also found missing on enquiry at his home. The accused No. 2 alleged to have helped the accused No. 1 in taking away the victim. Thus, the accused committed the offence alleged against them for which, a complaint came to be lodged.

(3.) Heard Mr. Apurva R. Kapadia, the learned advocate for the appellant - original accused No. 1 and Ms. Reeta Chandarana, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent - State.