SURENDER @ NARENDER @ HARENDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of CRA S No.718 SB of 2012 titled as Surender @ Narender @ Harender versus State of Haryana and CRA No. S.250 SB of 2012 titled as Sugreev @ Sugreem @ Khenya versus State of Haryana and CRA No. S.378 SB of 2012 titled as Rajesh versus State of Haryana and others, as all these appeals have arisen out of the same FIR, judgment and order. For convenience facts are being taken from CRA No. S.718 SB of 2012 titled as Surender @ Narender @ Harender versus State of Haryana.

(2.) All the aforesaid appellants have directed their appeals against the judgment dated 22.12.2011 and order dated 24.12.2011, passed by Shri Pardeep Kumar, Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Hisar vide which the accused Surender have been convicted for an offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC and accused Rajesh and Sugreev have been convicted for an offence under Sections 363/366 read with Section 120-B of the IPC and sentenced and Surender to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months under Section 376 of the IPC ; he is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month under Section 363 of the IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month under Section 363 of the IPC. Accused Sugreev and Rajesh were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month under Section 363 of the IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC and they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month under Section 366 of the IPC read with Section 120-B of the IPC. All the substantive sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 18.2.2010 complainant moved an application to Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Hisar that her daughter prosecutrix had left school after 5th class and helps her in household work. Her husband used to do work of digging tubewell and Narender son of Ram Swarup used to do same work with her husband. Narender usually visit their house. On 16.02.2010 at 6.30p.m. prosecutrix went to take milk from the house of her uncle and did not return in the night. They searched for her in their village but did not find. They also came to know that Narender and Rajesh were also not present at their houses. They believed that Narender and Rakesh had taken away prosecutrix by enticing her. On the basis of aforesaid statement, FIR was recorded. Later on prosecutrix was recovered. Accused were arrested. After completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused.