JOGA RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 25-07-2006 passed by the learned Ad ditional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2005, State Vs. Joga Ram, whereby the appel lant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years with a fine of Rs. 5. 000/- u/s 366 I. P. C. The appellant has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a pe riod of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 366 I. P. C. In default of pay ment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo four months imprisonment. The sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) THE fact, in nutshell, are that on 01-04-2005 at about 5:05 pm, Nandan Singh, the brother of the prosecutrix lodged a report in the police station al leging therein that on 03-01-2005 a per son claiming himself to be Arjun Singh (appellant) came to the house of Kishan Singh Negi and Ballam Singh, maternal uncles of the prosecutrix. THE appellant told them that he is working in B. S. F. and at present he is posted in Jammu and Kashmir. He wanted to marry with the prosecutrix, sister of Nandan Singh. THEreupon, the complainant party told appellant that they would talk to the girl and inform him accordingly about this. In the meantime, the appellant visited the house of Nandan Singh twice or thrice. It is further alleged that on 06-01-2005, the prosecutrix went to Ramnagar market and did not return home. In this regard a missing report Ex. Ka. 2 was lodged with the police sta tion on' the next day. It was alleged in the report that on 06-01-2005 the ac cused/appellant took the prosecutrix for cibly without her consent on giving threats from one place to another. Later on, it was revealed that the appellant was not posted in B. S. F. and his actual name is Joga Ram. He was the resident of Kaladhungi. THE appellant took the prosecutrix firstly to 3arjia Temple; then Rudrapur in a hotel in the night where sexual intercourse was committed with her; thereafter Chandel Farm of Ajeet Singh; and lastly she was taken to Bareilly in the farm of Hardayal Singh. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix received information through a friend of the appellant on telephone that the per son (appellant) with whom she was liv ing was not Arjun Singh but his actual name is Jogi Ram. THEreafter, on 30-03-2005 the prosecutrix made a tel ephonic call to Khim Singh who hap pens to be her uncle. She told him that she was living with the appellant in the farm of Hardayal Singh at Bareilly. On the next day, Khim Singh informed Nandan Singh about the said telephone message of the prosecutrix. THEreafter they went to search of the prosecutrix in the farm of Hardayal Singh at Nawabganj, Bareilly. THEy took the ap pellant and the prosecutrix to Ramnagar on the next day in the morning. THEy were taken to their village Dhella and thereafter in the evening a report was lodged in the police station. THE appel lant was handed over to the police. THE matter was investigated by the police. THE prosecutrix was examined by the doctor and after completing the investi gation, the police submitted the chargesheet before the court concerned.

(3.) THE accused/appellant was ex amined u/s 313 Cr. P. C. and he has pleaded not guilty to the offence. THE appellant further stated that he has been falsely implicated by the witnesses in this case. THE accused/appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence.