KOTHARI NISAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Sunil Singh, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant, and Shri Rajendra Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

(2.) Instant appeal has been preferred by appellant Kothari Nisad challenging the judgment and order dated 09.02.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, District Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 585 of 2003 arising out of Case Crime No. 701 of 2003, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sec. 368, 376 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. For the offence under Sec. 368 IPC, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and also with fine of Rs. 1,000/ - with default stipulation of four months' additional imprisonment; for the offence under Sec. 376 IPC, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years' and also with fine of Rs. 1,000/ - with default stipulation of four months' additional imprisonment, and for the offence under Sec. 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - with default stipulation of six months' additional imprisonment. However, he was acquitted of the charges levelled under Sec. 363 and 366 IPC. One Rajesh alias Tuinya was also tried with the present appellant for the offence under Sec. 368 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act. However, he was acquitted of the said charges.

(3.) In brief the case of the prosecution was that the complainant Smt. Rampati lodged a first information report at the police station Kotwali Sitapur on 11.05.2003 at 1530 hours alleging therein that her minor daughter aged about 14 years (hereinafter referred to as the victim) was enticed away by the appellant about 10 days ago. She was seen by her son Gopal and other persons of Mohalla namely Chhanu Lal. It was alleged that they were chased at that time but the victim could not be traced out. Thereafter they made efforts to search the victim but their efforts failed. She is Dhobi by caste. Hence, case was registered under Ss. 363, 366 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(12) SC/ST Act.