OMPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01-11-2003 passed in S.T.No.127/03 by learned Sessions Judge, Morena whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years' RI with fine of Rs.250/- and 5 years' RI with fine of Rs.500/- respectively with default stipulation.

(2.) BRIEF facts in narrow compass are that the prosecutrix (PW-3) {name of prosecutrix is not mentioned to hide her identity) went to appear in the examination of Class -10th on 26-03-2003 at about 7:30 am and thereafter when her mother went to take her from the school she was not found and after that search has been done with the relatives and thereafter her father lodged the report at police station. The prosecutrix has been found after two days at Gwalior Railway Station and after recording her statement, FIR has been registered against the appellant on the ground that he has abducted the prosecutrix and took her Gwalior from Morena and committed rape on her. After filing the challan, appellant has been tried for the charges mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment and learned trial Court vide impugned judgment has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 376 of IPC but convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC.

(3.) KEEPING in mind the age of prosecutrix about 18 years if the statement of prosecutrix is considered along with the evidence available on record, there is no evidence on record except that of prosecutrix (PW-3) regarding her abduction by the appellant. She has not been seen by any other person with the appellant. The allegation is that the appellant has kept her in a Lodge at Gwalior but she is unable to disclose the name of that Lodge. The prosecutrix has been found alone at Gwalior Railway Station further she has stated that the appellant has put cloth on her face behind the back and thereafter she accompanied the the appellant. She has further stated that she was unconscious but she was following the appellant. In the train, she was sitting away from the appellant and at Gwalior Railway Station she followed the appellant and thereafter they went in a Tempo to the Lodge. She further admitted that her name was written in the Lodge but nowhere she tried to escape nor tried to lodge any report or complained to any person that she is forcefully abducted against her will. Further on the one hand she stated that she does not know the appellant and on the other hand she stated that she used to call the wife of appellant as Bua which shows that prosecutrix knows the appellant before incident.