RUKMANI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARAS Nath P.W. 7 lodged case FIR No. 483/2000 at Police Station Sadar Gurgaon under Sections 363, 366, 368, 376 read with Section 120 -B IPC. He stated that he was employed in Parveen Industries. On 28.5.2010, he along with his family was residing in the house of Naveen Kumar Yadav at Shakti Park, Gurgaon. On the day of occurrence, i.e., 28.5.2000 at about 10.00 a.m., he along with his wife had gone to their relations in Vikas Nagar, Gurgaon. His daughter (name withheld to protect her identity and referred to as prosecutrix), aged 14 years and two sons Sanjay and Ajay, aged 8 years and 2 -1/2 years respectively, were in the house. When the complainant returned back home at about 7 p.m., his son Sanjay told him that a boy named Bhopal Singh, who was residing as a tenant in the house of Rajbir Yadav, was giving bad signals to the prosecutrix from the roof of his house. At about 4 p.m., the prosecutrix left the house by saying that she was going to bring vegetables but thereafter she did not return. Since the attempts made to trace the girl did not yield results, he lodged a missing report with the police post on 31.5.2000. It is stated by the complainant that he suspected that his daughter was enticed away by Bhopal Singh son of Balam Singh, Mohinder s/o Moti Singh and Dinesh s/o Phool Singh Ahir and Rukmani wife of Moti Singh and his daughter was recovered from the house of Narain s/o Moti Singh.

(2.) PARAS Nath appeared as P.W. 7 and stated that he came to know about the whereabouts of his daughter after two months as she was living with Narain and mother of Narain. The above stated FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted.

(3.) THE trial court held that no offence of rape is made out as prosecutrix was more than 16 years of age. However, it came to conclusion that she was less than 18 years of age, the Appellants were guilty of hatching criminal conspiracy with Narain with whom the prosecutrix had eloped and convicted the Appellants for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 368 read with Section 120 -B IPC vide judgment dated 18.1.2003, and vide order dated 22.1.2003, each of the accused was sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each under Section 363 read with Section 120 -B IPC, in default to undergo further RI for one month; the Appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each for offence under Section 366 IPC read with Section 120 -B IPC, and in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for one month; the Appellants were further sentenced to undergo RI of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each for offence under Section 368 read with Section 120 -B IPC. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.