VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to file an appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 10.5.2010. Respondent No.2 was arrayed as an accused in FIR No.374 dated 8.10.2010 police station Mohindergarh, for commission of offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC. It was an allegation against him that he had enticed away daughter of the applicant on 28.9.2010. Despite efforts made when girl could not be traced out, applicant reported the matter to the police.

(2.) Then he came to know that his daughter has been sent to Nari Niketan from where she will be produced in Court on 1.10.2010. The SDM concerned told him to produce his daughter again on 6.10.2010. On 8.10.2010 girl accompanied the complainant Vinod Kumar to the police station. Under direction of the police she was produced before Magistrate on 9.10.2010, where her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The prosecutrix was medico legally examined by PW1 Dr.Anjali Soni on 9.10.2010. Accused was arrested on 10.10.2010. He was also got medico legally examined by Dr.Vikesh Tekwani (PW9). The investigating officer (PW13) Bijender Singh recorded statements of the witnesses and on completion of investigation final report was put in Court. Copies of the documents were supplied to the accused as per norms. Case was committed to the competent Court for trial, where the respondent accused was charge sheeted to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) To prove its case the prosecution produced 13 witnesses and also brought on record documentary evidence. On conclusion of prosecution's evidence statement of the respondent-accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Incriminating material existing on record was put to him, which he refuted, claimed innocence and false implication. He rather stated that the prosecutrix had met him accidentally at Mahabir Chowk Narnaul. She informed him that she had left the house due to misbehavior of her mother. Despite efforts made, she refused to go back. Then some altercation took place between the accused and the prosecutrix. Public gathered at the spot and the police arrested him. Later on a false case was registered against him under Section 109 Cr.P.C. and thereafter he was involved in the present case. He also led evidence in defence.