SHAREEF Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374(2) read with Section 383 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence made therein by Court of Additional Sessions judge, Court No. 5, Ghaziabad, in Sessions Trial No. 572 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 1469 of 2011, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of I.P.C., Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, wherein convict-appellant Sharif son of Babu has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and thereby he has been sentenced with three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of making payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 363 of I.P.C., five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default one years additional rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 366 of I.P.C., ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, and in default two years additional rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 I.P.C., with a direction for concurrent running of sentences and adjustment of previous imprisonment, if any, in this very case crime number, as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Memo of appeal contends that trial Court failed to appreciate facts and law placed upon record. There was no proof of rape with victim nor it was medically corroborated. First Information Report was delayed and no reason for this delay, was given. Prosecutrix was major, thereby, capable to understand her wellness. It was a fleeing with someone else but convict-appellant has been falsely implicated in this case crime number, having no independent eye-witness account. He was having no concern with prosecutrix. No circumstantial evidence was against him nor it was medically corroborated for offence of rape. Even then, judgment of conviction was awarded by trial Court, which was based on surmises and conjunctures. Prosecution failed to prove charge beyond reasonable doubt and convict-appellant was entitled for benefit of doubt. Prosecutrix is mother of one healthy child and she never said that convict-appellant is father of that child. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) From the very perusal of record of lower court, it is apparent that First Information Report, Ex.Ka-1, was got lodged at Police Station Loni, District-Ghaziabad on 28.12.2011 at 09:15 hrs., for an occurrence of 11.12.2011, upon the report of Jameel, son of Mateen, against Sharif, Sheru and Sonu son of Babu and Noor Hasan son of Ismail, all resident of Badarpur, Loni, Ghaziabad, for an offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., with contention that Jameel's daughter prosecutrix "R", aged about 15 years, was enticed and taken away on 11.11.2011 by Sharif son of Babu, aged about 45 years with 5 kids. Sharif was residing in a rented portion of a house of Nanhe, situated at Yamuna city. He was used to visit applicant's house. On above date of occurrence, entire family members, except prosecutrix "R", were out of home, for attending a marriage ceremony and prosecutrix "R" was all alone at home. Prosecutrix "R" had taken cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and ornaments, with her. She was vehemently searched. But of no trace. This fleeing was assisted by his brothers Sheru, Shabu both son of Babu and his brother-in-law Noor Hasan son of Ismail, resident of Badarpur, Loni, Ghaziabad. Sheru and others are aware of their trace. Hence, this report for legal action.