ANWAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment passed by Sri Gajendra Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Allahabad dated 1.7.2014 passed in S.T. No. 892 of 2012, State Vs. Anwar @ Sunny alias Kauwal arising out of Case Crime No. 76 of 2012 Police Station Karchhana, District Allahabad whereby the accused appellant Anwar @ Sunny @ Kauwal who was acquitted of the charges under Sec. 363 I.P.C. but was found guilty under Sec. 366, 367 I.P.C. and was convicted on each count for seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/ - with default stipulation.

(2.) Filtering unnecessary details, the prosecution case in brief is that informant Keshaw Ram Gupta lodged a written report before the S.O. Karchhana stating that his daughter (name withheld by me) aged 15 years had gone to attend the call of nature on 6.4.2012 at 9 -10 a.m. She has been enticed away by the accused appellant Anwar who lives opposite the house of the informant. He tried to trace her daughter but she could not be traced, hence, F.I.R. was lodged.

(3.) On the basis of this F.I.R., investigation was entrusted to S.I. Ram Sanehi Yadav (P.W. 4). This case was registered in his presence at the police station. He copied the F.I.R. in the case diary, recorded the statements of the scribe of the chik and F.I.R., inspected the spot on the pointing out of the informant, prepared the site plan and proved it as Ext. Ka -6. After that he recorded the statements of Ram Milan and Amrit Lal Gupta. He recovered the victim along with the accused on 30.4.2012. On 2.5.2012 this witness P.W. 4 S.I. Ram Sanehi Yadav perused the medical supplementary report and X -ray report of the victim and made the entries in the case diary. He also made an endorsement about the statement of the victim recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., and later on submitted charge sheet against the accused which was proved as Ext. Ka -8. P.W. 5 Constable Santosh Kumar prepared the chik report, which was proved as Ext. Ka -9. On the basis of this chik report, he wrote the G.D. copy of which was proved as Ext. Ka -10. The victim was medically examined by P.W. 3. Dr. Vandana Srivastava who did not find any external or internal injury on the body of the victim. She proved the medical report as Ext. Ka -2. She also proved the supplementary report Ext. Ka -3 and Ka -4 and the pathological report as Ext. Ka -5.