DHAMO @ DHARMENDRA TALPADA DEVIPUJAK Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned 5th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh, in Sessions Case No. 94 of 2011 dated 18th October, 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

(2.) The facts which can be culled out from the record of the appeal, as well as, paper book are as under:- That one Rasikbhai Jinabhai residing at Mendarada, Dist.- Junagadh lodged an FIR being CR No.I-33 of 2009 for the alleged offence under Sections 363, 376 and 502(2) of Indian Penal Code on 15th April, 2009. The complaint was lodged by the first informant in relation to his daughter- Disha aged about 3 years. That the original complainant went to the field of Natubhai for some work with his daughter Disha. Thereafter, at noon, the complainant dropped her daughter at home and went to the house of Natubhai for lunch and after having lunch, he went to his agricultural field. It is the case of the first informant that he received a mobile call from Natubhai asking the first informant to return to his village as his mother came to his house, complaining that his daughter is lost somewhere. It is further contended that on coming back home, his mother informed him that one person abducted her daughter from the house, however, as her eye sight was poor, she could not identify the abductor. The first informant has further elaborated that he immediately informed wife namely Tejal. It is further averred that she informed him that when she went to Patel Samaj (Community Hall) for work before about 15 days, one Dhamo with whom Guddi had eloped, and other two persons came there and asked her as to where is her sister Guddi and that if she does not tell her about Guddi, he will abduct her daughter. When the first informant was thinking to search her daughter, he received a phone call on his mobile No. 9638434938 from the mobile No. 9925423908 of the appellant, who informed the first informant that his daughter is safe with the appellant and further informed that if he wants his daughter back, he should bring Guddi on the next day at 10.00 am at Petrol Pump situated at Jetpur. He further informed the first informant to bring money, otherwise he would kill his daughter. The record indicates that on the said day, the First Information Report was lodged. Upon the investigation, the investigating agency arrested the appellant, who was found with the daughter of the first informant namely Disha, and undertook the exercise of preparation of panchnama of the scene of offence and panchnama of the house of the appellant-accused. Thereafter, the case was registered as Criminal Case No. 1869 of 2009 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Juangadh, and thereafter, it was transferred to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mendarada and was renumbered as Criminal Case No. 156 of 2010. By an application below Exh. 58, the charge of Section 376 of the IPC was added and as such offence is triable by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the Sessions Court, Junagadh and it was registered as Sessions Case No. 94 of 2011. The charge was framed at Exh.7 on 15th March, 2012 for the offences under Sections 363, 506(2) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The appellant did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.