JALAJI KANTIJI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Patan on 07. 03. 2005 in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2004, whereby the present appellant, who was the original accused in the aforesaid Sessions Case, came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was awarded the sentence of R. I. for 7 years, fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, R. I. for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, R. I. for 7 years, fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, R. I. for 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and R. I. for 10 years, fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine, R. I. for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case as unfolded during the course of trial is that the incident occurred on 25. 07. 2002 at about 19. 30 hrs. in village Ganeshpura. At the relevant time, the prosecutrix was residing with her mother PW-1 Bhikhiben Chandaji. The prosecutrix had during evening hours gone to the place of her uncle for prayer and from there, she returned to her house. When she was at her home, her friend Jalpaben Chamanji told the prosecutrix that she was called by the accused. Thereupon, the prosecutrix left her home along with Jalpaben and met the accused, who was found present near a school building. It is alleged that thereafter the accused kidnapped the prosecutrix, who was aged about 10 years at the relevant time and took her to different places and raped her. Since the prosecutrix was missing, Bhikhiben Chandaji, mother of the prosecutrix informed the Harij police about the missing of her daughter, the prosecutrix and her FIR was registered. Investigation was commenced. During the course of investigation, statements of material witnesses were recorded. However, on or about dated 15. 11. 2002, the prosecutrix came to the house of her teacher Minaben. Minaben immediately informed the police as well as the parents of the prosecutrix. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was sent to civil hospital by police for her examination. Subsequently, the accused came to be arrested and he was also sent for his medical examination. After collecting required material for the purpose of lodgment of charge sheet, charge sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC, Harij. Since the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned JMFC committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Patan, which was registered as Sessions Case No. 36 of 2004.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge framed charge against the accused at Exh. 4, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the prosecution adduced oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses and produced relevant documentary evidence. After the prosecution completed its oral evidence, the learned trial Judge recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused, in his further statement, denied generally all the incriminating circumstances put to him by the trial Court and stated that because of animosity between his family and the family of the victim, he was falsely implicated in this case. After appreciating the evidence on record and the submissions made on behalf of both the sides, the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and recorded the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded the sentence as hereinabove referred to in this judgment.