AYYUB Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 26.09.2015 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Pilibhit in Sessions Trial No. 319 of 2013 (State v/s. Ayyub) arising out of Case Crime No. 739 of 2012, under Ss. 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Pilibhit, District Pilibhit, whereby the accused -appellant has been convicted and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - under Sec. 363 IPC; seven years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - under Sec. 366 IPC and ten years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000/ - under Sec. 376 IPC with default stipulation. Out of fine so deposited by the appellant, half of the same was directed to be paid to the victim.

(2.) Filtering out the unnecessary details, the prosecution case is that a written report was given by Maqsood Ahmad, son of Mansoor Ahmad, resident of Bujkasawan, Police Station Kotwali Pilibhit, District Pilibhit on 05.11.2012 at 4.30 P.M. mentioning therein that his daughter (victim), aged about 13 years is missing since 03.11.2012. She has taken away Rs. 50,000/ - (rupees fifty thousand) and two tolas gold with her. The informant made a search of his daughter in the neighbourhood and in relations but when she could not be traced, he lodged the report against Ayyub, Guddu, Sharafat, Babu sons of Liyakat and Yunus on the basis of suspicion on 05.11.2012. On the basis of which a case was registered at case crime No. 739 of 2012, under Ss. 363, 366 IPC, which was mentioned in the GD vide report No. 42. After the registration of the case, the case was entrusted to SI Rakesh Singh. He copied the chik report and GD report in the case diary and recorded the statement of the chik writer. On 07.11.2012, he recorded the statement of the first informant Maqsood. Thereafter, he inspected the spot and prepared the site plan, Exhibit Ka -5. On 03.01.2013, he recovered the victim from near the roadways bus stand and prepared its memo, which he proved as Exhibit Ka -6. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the victim, on the basis of which Sec. 376 IPC was added. On 07.01.2013, he copied the medical report in the case diary. The age of the victim was found to be 16 to 17 years. On 04.04.2013, after taking permission of the court, he recorded the statement of accused. After completion of the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet, which he proved as Exhibit Ka -7.

(3.) The prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. PW -1 is the informant Maqsood, the father of the victim. PW -2 is the victim of the case. PW -3 is Dr. Mahavir Singh. PW -4 is Dr. Anita Chaurasia. PW -5 is S.I., Rakesh Singh, Investigating Officer. PW -6 is Constable Sukhvir Singh.