SHAUKIN SHAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal, preferred by the appellant u/s 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr. PC.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-01-1983 passed by Special Judge (Addi tional Sessions Judge), Nainital in Ses sions Trial No. 152 of 1982, State v. Shaukin Shah, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appel lant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (here inafter referred to as I. PC.) read with Section 511 I. P. C. and awarded sen tence for four years' R. I. under Section 363 I. PC. , four years R. I. under Section 366 {. PC. and four years' R. I. under Sec tion 376 I. P. C. read with Section 511 I. P. C. and has directed that all the sen tences shall run concurrently.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case is that victim Km. Noor Jahan, aged about 10 years, daughter of complain ant Shamsher Sah living with her father, mother, brother and maternal grand fa ther in village Gorakhpur, Post Office Karanpur, PS. Ram Nagar, District Naipital. Her father Shamsher Sah was a poor person having a son Phool Sah (brother of victim Km. Noor Jahan) who was aged about 19 (sic, 10) years. Through the medium of one Banne Sah, the accused-appellant Shaukin Sah came to the house of Shamsher Sah on 06-07-1982 in daytime. At that time, Shamser Sah was not present at his house and had gone out to procure la bourers for certain work. Accused-appel lant Shaukin told that he wanted to marry his sister with Phool Sah and on this pretext he took Phool Sah, victim Km. Noor Jahan and their maternal grand father alongwith him to see his sister at Amroha. They reached at Amroha bus station, where accused-ap pellant Shaukin duped Phool Sah and Itwari Sah and took away victim Km. Noor Jahan saying that his sister was standing at another place and he would return after leaving Km. Noor Jahan with his sister but he did not return. Phool Sah and Itwari Sah waited at the was station for a long time but it was in vain and ultimately they returned to their house where they informed about the said incident to Shamsher Sah. Shamsher Sah searched his daughter for a few days and when he failed to trace out her whereabouts, he lodged the EI. R. at the Police Station Ramnagar on 12-07-1982 at 12. 25 hours. The F. I. R. is Ex. Ka-3 and on the basis of that F. I. R. , a Chik report was prepared, the Chik report is Ex. Ka-4. The entry was made in the G. D. , the carbon copy of G. D. is Ex. Ka-5. The investigation of the case was entrusted to P. W. 6 S. I. Mohd. Tausif Ali Siddiqui. On 21-07-1982, victim Km. Noor Jahan was recovered from the possession of appellant / accused Shaukin Shah and recovery memo was prepared, that recovery memo is Ex. Ka-9. Victim Km. Noor Jahan was medically examined by the INcharge Medical Officer, Women Hospital, Ramnagar on 24-07-1982 at 10. 30 A. M. , the medical report is Ex. Ka-1. A certificate was issued by Su perintendent, L. D. B. Hospital, Kashipur (Nainital) regarding her age in which her age has been mentioned below 10 years. The age certificate is Ex. Ka-2. During the course of investigation, the I. O. prepared the site plan of the place from where the victim Km. Noor Jahan was kidnapped, that site plan is Ex. Ka-6. The I. O. also prepare the site plan of the place from where the victim Km. Noor Jahan was re-covered, at site plan is Ex. Ka-7. During the course of the investigation, the INves tigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the in vestigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused appellant on 10-08 1982, the charge sheet is Ex. Ka-8.

(3.) TO prove its case the prosecution examined P. W. 1 Dr. Prahladi, who has medically examined victim Km. Noor Jahan, P. W. 2 victim Km. Noor Jahan, PW. 3 Dr. R. R Rastogi, P. W. 4 Phool Sah (brother of the victim Km. Noor Jahan) and P. W. 5 Shamsher Sah (father of the victim), P. W. 6 S. I. Mohd. Tausif Ali Siddiqui (Investigating Officer), P. W. 7 Constable Maipal Singh and P. W. 8 Con stable Bhupal Singh. After that the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , who denied the allegations made against him and in defence he did not produce any oral or documentary evidence.