IMRAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 30.09.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Muzaffarnagar in ST No. 1413 of 2007 (State Vs. Imran and another) whereby accused Imran and Dilshad were found guilty. Accused Imran was convicted and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 10,000/ - fine under Sec. 366 IPC. Under Sec. 376 IPC accused Imran and Dilshad each was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 25,000/ - fine each with default stipulation.

(2.) Filtering out unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that on 24.12.2006 at 9:00 PM Imran and Dilshad took away the minor girl of the informant who was seen by Nafees and Riazuddin who told the informant that they had seen Dilshad and Imran taking away the girl. The informant was tracing his daughter. He also asked the family members of accused Imran, but they did not give any satisfactory answer. Hence, the first information report was got lodged against the accused appellants. On the basis of this first information report, the Constable Clerk Brahmajeet Singh, PW -5, scribed the chik report, which was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka -4. The details of first information report were mentioned in the GD, copy of which was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka -5.

(3.) Besides this witness, the prosecution produced the victim as PW -1. PW -2 is informant and father of the victim namely Shamshad. He proved the written report, which was marked as Ext. Ka -1. He further proved the recovery memo as Ext. Ka -2. PW -3 is Nafees, who is said to have seen the accused appellants taking away the girl. PW -4 is SI Chandrakant Pandey, who is said to have recovered the victim and handed over her to her parents. He copied the report in case -diary, inspected the spot at the pointing out of informant. He recorded statements of two witnesses, copied the medical report in the case -diary, recorded statements of the victim and informant. The statement of victim recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. was copied by this witness. Further, this witness recorded the statement of Nafees and Riyazuddin. This witness proved the site plan as Ext. Ka -3. PW -6 is Doctor Vinita Agnihotri, who examined the victim. She did not find any external or internal injury on the body of the victim. Her hymen was torn, old and healed. The vagina was admitting two fingers easily. Two pathological slides were prepared. The victim was sent to confirm her pregnancy. This witness has proved the medical report as Ext. Ka -6. PW -7 is Mohd. Mustakeem, Junior Clerk in the office of Chief Medical Officer, Muzaffarnagar. He filed ultra -sound report, X -ray report, and age certificate before the Court and admitted that these reports were certified by him. He also submitted before the Court that to prove those documents radiologist must be called for and supplementary report, according to him, was in District Women Hospital and that was required to be summoned and doctor be also summoned to prove the supplementary report dated 24.04.2007. He admitted the said report to be correct as per record.