HANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant Hans Raj against the judgment and order dated 15/17.4.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, vide which he was convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00, in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year under Sec. 363 Penal Code. The accused/appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000.00, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year under Sec. 366 Penal Code. The accused/appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000.00, in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years under Sec. 376 Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that 50% of the total amount of the fine imposed upon the convict shall be paid as compensation to the prosecutrix in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 357 Crimial P.C.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 19.8.2009, complainant Desh Raj (father of prosecutrix) moved an application (Ex.PA) before the Station House Officer, Police Station Pataudi, wherein he stated that on 16.8.2009, he had lodged a report regarding the missing of his daughter Miss 'S' (identification withheld). It was stated that subsequently, the complainant has come to know that his minor daughter Miss 'S' was enticed away by Hans Raj Kaushik son of Murari Kaushik, resident of village Ramchand Pura (Chamarbas), Tehsil Behrod, District Alwar, Rajasthan. The accused is having two mobile phone numbers i.e. 9928960279 and 9996715404. Therefore, a case should be registered against accused Hans Raj for enticing his minor daughter and that his minor daughter should be traced. He further stated that his daughter's age is about 16 years. On the complaint (Ex.PA) of the complainant, a formal FIR (Ex.PA/1) was registered at Police Station Pataudi under Sections 363 and 366-A Penal Code. On 18.9.2009, the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of accused Hans Raj. After recovery, the custody of the prosecutrix was handed over to the complainant, vide memo Ex.PB. Accused/appellant Hans Raj was also apprehended. Vide memo Ex.PH, the accused admitted to have enticed away the prosecutrix and committed rape with her. He also identified the place of rape, vide memo Ex.PJ. The site plan (Ex.PK) of the place of rape was also prepared. Accused was got medico legally examined. The prosecutrix was also medico legally examined. Her (prosecutrix's) age determination test was also got conducted. Her school admission record was also taken into possession through memo Ex.PD. After the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner, offence under Sec. 376 Penal Code was also added. After the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court. The accused was chargesheeted under Sections 363, 366 and 376, to which the accused plead not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined complainant Desh Raj, father of the prosecutrix (PW1), the prosecutrix (PW2), Draftsman Manoj Kumar, (PW3), ASI Shamshudeen (PW4), Dharam Pal Yadav, Head Master (PW5), SI Rajinder Singh (PW6), Dr. Manoj Kumar (PW7), ASI Kanwar Singh (PW8), Constable Anil Kumar (PW9), Dr. Monika (PW10) and closed the evidence.

(3.) When examined under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C., the accused raised the following plea:-