LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-14

ANJU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On May 04, 2016
ANJU Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 30.5.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Saharanpur in S.T. No. 565 of 2012 (State Vs. Anju and Others) arising out of Crime No. 101 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C., Police Station-Deoband, District-Saharanpur, whereby all the accused except Anju was acquitted. Consequently, the accused-appellant Anju were convicted to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2,000/- fine under Section 363 I.P.C.; 4 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2,000/- fine under Section 366 I.P.C. and 7 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/- fine under Section 376 I.P.C. with default stipulation.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that one Patiram lodged a written report on 12.3.2012 stating that on 11.3.2012 at 5:00 p.m. his minor daughter was taken away by accused-appellant Anju with illegal intentions. The accused was seen taking away the girl by Vicky and Dharmendra. The informant searched for his daughter, when both the witnesses told him that they had seen the accused taking away his daughter. Complaint was also made to the father of the accused, who did not pay any heed. Hence, F.I.R. was lodged.

(3.) On the basis of this written report, Constable 428 Lakshman Singh, P.W. 5 scribed the chik report, which was proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-6. This witness further proved the copy of the G.D. as Exhibit Ka-7. P.W. 8 Dr. Surendra Singh, who conducted the ossification test on the victim and proved the radiological report as Exhibit Ka-14. He further proved x-ray plate as material Exhibit-1. Dr. Madhu Agrawal, P.W. 4 medically examined the victim. She did not find any marks of injury on the external or internal part of the victim. The hymen was old, torn and healed and the vagina was admitting two fingers easily. The slide of vaginal smear was prepared and sent for medical examination. This witness proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka-3, pathological report as Exhibit Ka-4 and the supplementary report as Exhibit Ka-5 respectively.