DEVENDRA PRAKASH VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010, passed by Addl. Sessions Judge /Fast Track, Court Room No.13, Sultanpur in S.T.No.101 of 2008 arising out of case No. 92 of 2008 , under sections 363/366/506 I.P.C And 3 (1)(12) and 3 (2) 5 SC/ST Act,P.S. Motinagar, District Sultanpur where by the appellant was tried and convicted under sections 366, 376 and 506 I.P.C., however, he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 363 I.P.C, Sections 3 (1) (12) and 3(2) (5) of the SC/ST Act. For the offence under Section 366 I.P.C he was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for four years and also with fine of Rs.1000/ with default stipulation of one month's additional imprisonment, for the offence under section 376 I.P.C., he was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also with fine of Rs.1500/ with default stipulation of two month's additional impriosonment for the offence under section 506 I.P.C, he was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) In brief the case of the prosecution was that on 26.02.2008 at about 9.00 a.m., the victim who was student of B.A Ist year, had gone to attend her College (Smt.Kalawati Girls Degree College Shivmurti Nagar Shahpur Lapta). When she did not come back till evening, then complainant searched her. He continued his search for about two days After his efforts failed, he gave information of this incident to the police. Police instead of registering the case asked him to continue his search so he continued his search. On 1.03.2008 at about 3.00 p.m. a call was received on the P.C.O of the village of the complainant which was made from a mobile phone and the P.C.O owner was asked to call the family members of the victim.On this information of the P.C.O owner the complainant and his brother went to P.C.O and after some time again a call was received from the said mobile. The victim desperately told that she has been forcibly kidnapped by some unknown persons in an Indica Car, after administering something to her which made her unconscious, therefore, she was not aware as to what happened thereafter.She found herself closed in a room. A mobile phone was lying there and she expressed that her life is in danger and asked for immediate help. Even after this information, F.I.R of this case was lodged on 5.03.2008 under Section 364 I.P.C at 9.15 a.m. as no information constituting any other offence was given by the victim on the mobile phone. During investigation, on 28.3.2008 the victim was recovered near Civil Court Crossing , District Sultanpur at about 4.55 p.m. and her statement was recorded. After completing the investigation chargesheet was filed against the accused appellant. The case of the defence was that the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in this case as the victim was major and she had gone out of her own free will with the appellant and they have solemnized marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir at Kanpur and also moved application before the higher authorities along with certificate of marriage stating there in that she is major and the accused appellant has been falsely implicated.

(3.) In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined P.W.-1 Ram Charan complainant,P.W.-2 Ram Karan, P.W.-3 Victim,P.W-4 H.C Vijay Kumar Singh,P.W-5 Dr. Jai Shree Gupta who conducted medical examination of the victim,P.W.-6 Pulkit Pandey, P.C.O owner, P.W.-7 S.I.Jamuna Prasad Sharma and P.W.-8constable Sunder Lal who has proved the recovery memo.