LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-26

BABA KUBERANAND Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On December 09, 2020
Baba Kuberanand Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present jail appeal has been preferred by the appellant Baba Kuberanand @ Kaluram from jail against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.3.2016 passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No.17 of 2014 (State of U.P. Vs. Baba Kuberanand alias Kaluram). The accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 363 I.P.C. and in default thereof he shall undergo additional imprisonment for two months, sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 366 I.P.C. and in default thereof he shall undergo additional imprisonment for three months, sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Sections 376(2) J of I.P.C. and in default thereof he shall undergo additional imprisonment for three months, sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 4 of POCSO Act and in default thereof he shall undergo additional imprisonment for three months. All these sentences have been directed to be run concurrently.

(2.) Factual matrix of the case are that the F.I.R. (Exhibit Ka-5) was lodged by complainant Pratap Singh (P.W.-2) in Police Station Dhaulana, District Hapur that her daughter, age 15 years, was missing since evening of 13.1.2014 and he suspects Baba Kuberanand, Harish, Rinku and Sushil for the same. The case was registered as Case Crime No.21 of 2014, under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. The case was investigated by S.I. Vinod Kumar Sharma (P.W.-5) who submitted the charge-sheet (Exhibit Ka-8) on 8.2.2014. Learned trial court had framed charges against appellant on 3.5.2014 under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) I, 376(2) J of I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act. The appellant-accused has denied the charges and pleaded for trial.

(3.) So as to hold the accused-appellant guilty, the prosecution had produced six witnesses which are as follows:-