SURENDRA AND ANR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgement and order dated 22.7.2014 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, District- Bareilly in S.T. No. 1140 of 2010 (State Vs. Surendra & Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 470 of 2009, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.), Police Station- Bhuta, District-Bareilly, whereby the accused-appellants Surendra and Munga Lal were found guilty and sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section 366 I.P.C.; 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- each under Section 376 (2)(g) I.P.C. with default stipulation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the informant stating that on 3.9.2009 Surendra nephew of Mungal Lal had come to the house of the Munga Lal. On that date, the daughter of the informant had gone to attend the call of nature at 3 O'clock in the night. On the way, the accused-appellant Surendra enticed away his daughter. Accused-appellants Munga Lal, Begraj and Hira Kali w/o Begraj had conspired in the matter. On the basis of the F.I.R., the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses.

(3.) P.W. 1 is the informant, who proved the written report as Exhibit Ka-1. P.W. 2 is Mahipal, who is said to be the witness of fact. This witness is the brother of the victim. P.W. 3 is witness of fact. P.W. 4 is the victim, who proved her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit Ka-3. P.W. 5 is Constable Tej Pal Singh, who scribed the chik, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-4. This witness further proved the copy of the G.D. as Exhibit Ka-5. P.W. 6 is Omveer Singh, who conducted the investigation. He copied the report in the C.D., he recorded the statements of the chik scriber and the witnesses. The victim was sent for medical examination. The statement of the victim was recorded, after that she was given in the custody of her parents. The site plan of the place where the victim was recovered, was prepared by this witness, which was proved as Exhibit Ka-6. He arrested the accused, recorded the statement of Ram Murti, Chandra Pal, Harish Kumar, Mahesh and Ram Swaroop. The investigation ended into a charge-sheet, which was proved by this witness as Exhibit Ka-7. P.W. 7 is Dr. Sneh Lata, who medically examined the victim. She proved the medical report as Exhibit Ka-8 and the X-ray report as Exhibit Ka-9. P.W. 8 is Dr. Raj Kumar, who conducted the ossification test on the victim. He proved the X-ray report as Exhibit Ka-10 and X-ray plate as material Exhibit 1.