VISHNU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed by Vishnu son of Daya Kishan and Anil son of Laxman Singh against the judgment dated 26.7.2003 and order dated 29.7.2003 vide which both the accused appellants have been convicted under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month and also convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) STATION House Officer, Police Station City, Gurgaon sent Vishnu and Anil Kumar to stand trial in respect of FIR No.412 dated 29.6.2000 under Sections 363, 376, 506 read with Section 34 IPC.

(3.) THE law was set in motion by recording the statement of the complainant Prem Singh who has stated that he was residing with his family in Arjun Nagar, Gurgaon. His wife (prosecutrix) was resident of U.P. He was working at the workshop of Anil one year back situated at Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. Due to this reason, Anil had been visiting his house. He had suspicion that Anil and his wife had illicit relations. He shifted the house from Rajiv Nagar to Arjun Nagar along with his family and also left the job from the workshop of Anil. On 26.6.2000 at about 11.00 p.m, a telephone was received at the house of his landlord from Anil who asked about the complainant and his landlord replied that the complainant was not there. Anil wanted to talk with wife of the complainant. On 27.6.2000 at about 7.30 A.M., wife of the complainant had a conversation with Anil on telephone and when the complainant woke up, he found that his wife and son Rahul aged about 3 years were not present. He disclosed this fact to the neighbour and to the landlord. He has further stated that he had suspicion that Anil had enticed his wife (prosecutrix). Request for search of his wife was made. On the basis of statement of the complainant, FIR under Sections 363 and 506 IPC was registered against Anil.