LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-260

SEEMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On April 02, 2013
SEEMA DEVI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants Seema Devi, Gulab and Deepak @ Bharat Singh @ Chunnu have filed separate appeals challenging the judgment and order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. No.1, Fatehpur in Sessions Trial Nos.198 of 2005 and 23 of 2007 whereby the appellant Gulab has been convicted under sections 363, 366 and 376 (2)(G) I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and ten years respectively, the appellant Deepak @ Bharat Singh @ Chunnu has been convicted under sections 363, 366 and 376 (2)(G)/120-B and 506 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years, five years and two years respectively, while the appellant Seema Devi was convicted for the offence under sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years for each of the offences. Apart from the sentence, the appellant Gulab has also been imposed a fine of Rs.16,000/-, the appellant Deepak @ Bharat Singh @ Chunnu was imposed a fine of Rs.17,000/- while the appellant Smt. Seema Devi was imposed a fine of Rs.6,000/-. In default of payment of fine, they were further been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of two years and one year respectively for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that on 4.8.2004 at about 11.00 A.M. the informant's minor daughter, aged about 12 years was kidnapped by the appellants Gulab and Deepak @ Bharat Singh @ Chunnu. They were seen together by Km. Anju and Harpal and they informed the informant that they had seen her minor daughter going with Gulab and Deepak @ Bharat Singh @ Chunnu. The informant tried to search out her daughter but when she could not be found, she went to the police station on 5.8.2004 but her report was not lodged. Thereafter she gave an application to the Additional Superintendent of Police but again no action was taken. On 8.8.2004 the informant and her husband were called upon by the Sub Inspector at Radhenagar police outpost where her daughter and some more persons were found present. Smt. Seema Devi was also present there. The police tried to persuade the informant to enter into compromise with them but since the informant was not agreeable to it, her report was again not registered. The prosecutrix had told her mother that Gulab and Deepak @ Bharat Singh @ Chunnu both used to demand money from her and the appellant Gulab was pressurising her to marry with him. When the informant asked her daughter as to why she went with the appellants, she told that both Gulab and Deepak @ Bharat Singh @ Chunnu had enticed her away on the pretext that they would return the money to her, but instead of giving her back any money, she was forcibly taken to an unknown place where Gulab committed rape on her. The prosecutrix also told her mother that prior to this occurrence Smt. Seema Devi had also taken some ornaments from her saying that she would marry his son Gulab with her. When the report of the informant was not lodged then on 23.9.2004 she sent a letter to the S.S.P. by registered post. During all this period the appellants used to give threats to the informant not to take any action . Having no other alternative, the informant gave an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and on the basis of the order dated 17.11.2004 a case was registered against the appellants. The investigation was handed over to S.I. Angad Pratap Singh, PW-5 who interrogated the prosecutrix and other witnesses. The prosecutrix was sent to the hospital for medical examination and subsequent to this, she was produced before the Magistrate where her statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The Investigating Officer also visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan. After completing the investigation and finding prima facie evidence against all the appellants, he submitted charge sheet against them.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined six witnesses. One court witness Virendra Kumar Singh, C.W.-1 was also produced during trial. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence the statement of the appellants was recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. and after giving them opportunity of defence, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments and on the basis of evidence on record, found them guilty and accordingly convicted them as detailed herein above.