DEEPAK JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This jail appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant Deepak Jaiswal against the judgment and order dtd. 1/11/2019 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Jaunpur, in Special Sessions Trial No. 12 of 2016 (State of U.P. Vs. Deepak Jaiswal), arising out of Case Crime No. 266 of 2016 under Ss. 376, 302, 201 I.P.C., Ss. 3/4 POCSO Act and Sec. 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station-Madiyahoo, District-Jaunpur, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.10,000.00 each, in default thereof he has to further undergo one year additional imprisonment; life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000.00 under Sec. 376 I.P.C., in default thereof, he has to further undergo one year additional imprisonment; two years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000.00 under Sec. 201 I.P.C., in default thereof, he has to further undergo three months additional imprisonment; and six months' simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.500.00, in default thereof, he has to further undergo one month additional imprisonment with an observation that all the sentences are run to concurrently.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Vindeshwari Prasad, Advocate, who has appeared on behalf of the accused-appellant as Amicus Curiae and Mrs. Archana Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the entire materials available on record.

(3.) The prosecution case proceeds upon a written report dtd. 27/1/2016 (Exhibit-Ka/1) of first informant, namely, Babita Chaubey (P.W.-1) on the basis of which the first information report (Exhibit-ka/3) as case crime no. 0266 of 2016 has been registered on the same day at 08:15 p.m. The report has been proved by P.W.-1 as per which the informant/P.W.-1 had come to her parents' house at Mohalla Ganj, Police Station-Madiyahu, District Jaunpur. On 27/1/2016 informant's daughter aged about 7 years had gone to the Shiv temple in front of the house and was playing on the platform (Chabutara) with other children. Informant was watching her from the house. At 04:00 p.m. the accusedappellant, resident of nearby locality, was seen around the temple and he also showed affection to the victim and offered her toffee and biscuit and started talking to her. The accused-appellant was seen taking the victim but the first informant did not doubt his intentions and thought that the accused-appellant was only caressing her. It is alleged that several children present at the place saw the accused-appellant taking the victim. The informant's attention was diverted on account of house hold work and taking advantage of it the accused-appellant allegedly enticed the minor victim. The informant remained under the believe that her daughter was playing with her friend. After some time when the victim was not seen the informant came to the temple but could not find her daughter. The informant had the firm belief that it was the accused-appellant who had taken the victim. Since the accused-appellant had bad reputation in the locality, the informant began to believe that the accused-appellant took the victim with him to some unknown place with bad intentions.