KOMAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. Mishra, J. This is a defective-revision as it was filed beyond period of limitation by 27th days. The revisionist who had filed complaint is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6-11-99 passed by Special Judge (D. A. A.)/additional Ses sions Judge, Lalitpur acquitting the ac cused Subedar Singh for offence punish able under Sections 363 and 366,1. P. C.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that Kumari Sunita, daughter of the revisionist was kidnapped by the accused while she had gone to attend the College along with her sister Kumkum. THE complainant starlet' making enquiries when she did not return. One Ram Dayal told him that he has seen Kumari Sunita going towards Motor stand on a Rickshaw along with the accused Subedar. Further enquiries revealed that she had taken garments, or naments and cash worth Rs. 6000. To prove its case the prosecution examined Kumari Sunita who did not support the prosecu tion case. She stated that she was major and had gone on her own accord with the accused and had entered into marriage allowance. She was declared hostile. THE complainant Komal Chand supported the prosecution case. He stated that on the date of the incident Sunita was aged about 17years two months and forty four days.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and cir cumstances of the case and solitary and infirm evidence of the complainant I do not find it a fit case for interfering with the order of acquittal.