RAJUBHAI CHUNILAL TADAVI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-original accused, who has been convicted vide judgment and order dated 19-9-2001 passed in Sessions Case No. 169 of 2007 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vadodara, for the offence punishable under Secs. 366 and 376 of IPC and has been sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further ten days SI for the offence under Sec. 366 and to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer further ten days SI for the offence under Sec. 376 IPC. He was however acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 363 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Set off under Sec. 428 of Cr. P. C. was also granted.

(2.) THE case in short is that on 16-2-2007 when the complainant-father of the victim and his wife went to Village Kandari to attend the afterdeath ceremony of a relative, the victim went to a fair (mela) on the occasion of Shivaratri in Lakuleshwar Mandir at Karvar. When they returned at about 2. 00 p. m. , they did not find their daughter. They waited till evening hoping that she would return after the festival fair was over. As accused Raju was also not found at his residence, they doubted that Raju might have kidnapped their daughter. Since it was learnt that the accused kidnapped the victim, they inquired from parents of the accused Raju and they informed that whenever they would see accused and victim, they would hand over the victim to complainant and hence, no complaint was filed immediately. Since the victim did not return back after some time, the complainant went to an advocate and drafted a complaint and lodged it before Dabhoi Police Station and offence was regsitered. As accused and victim came to know of the same, they remained present before the police from where the accused was arrested. The investigating officer on completion of investigation filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Secs. 363, 366 and 376 of IPC against the accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dabhoi. As the offence was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Vadodara where it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 169 of 2007 and charge was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) TO prove the case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses including the complainant, victim, Medical Officer, panchas, Investigating Officer, Talati, etc. The prosecution also produced and relied on many documentary evidences such as complaint Ex. 10, post mortem note Ex. 11, medical certificate of the victim at Ex. 21, FSL report Ex. 40, etc.