ANIL CHITARMAL SAMARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is original accused. By the impugned judgment and order dated 17. 04. 2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2003, the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under section 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC ). For offence under section 363 and 366, the appellant was sentenced to R. I. for five years each and for offence under section 376, he was sentenced to seven years of R. I. Fine has also been imposed against him. Substantive sentences were made concurrent.

(2.) AS per charge Ex. 7, it was alleged against the appellant that on 26th December 2002, he had taken the victim girl 'b' aged about 16 years from the lawful guardianship of her parents without their consent. He had thus kidnapped the girl with an intention of having sexual intercourse outside marriage. Between 26th December 2002 and 4th January 2003, he had stayed with the victim girl in a guest house at Hyderabad and had sexual intercourse with her without her consent.

(3.) HASMUKHBHAI, PW-1, complainant, father of the victim girl was examined at Ex. 13. He stated that the date of birth of his daughter 'b' is 3. 9. 87. On 26th December 2002, she had left home to go to school in the morning. When she did not return in the afternoon after school hours, mother of the girl went to the school to inquire and it was learnt that she had not gone to the school at all. In the afternoon, it was told to the witness by his wife. In the evening, they had filed janva jog entry before the Police Station. He had received a phone call from his daughter after a few days telling him that she wants to return home, but he should not beat her up. He lodged a formal complaint before the Police Station on 30th or 31st December. His daughter and the accused were arrested by the police and the Kalupur Police Station handed over the custody of his daughter to him. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused stays opposite to his house with family, that the two families had good relation before the incident and members of both families would visit each other. He stated that the date of birth of his daughter 'b' was recorded as per the record of the hospital.