SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was charged for offences under Sections 363/366A and 376 IPC, while Naveen Kumar and Manoj Kumar under Section 216 IPC. Vide judgment and order dated 30.10.2003, the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Jhajjar acquitted Naveen Kumar and Manoj Kumar of the charges against them. The appellant was convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Section 366A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, no separate conviction under Section 363 IPC was recorded qua the appellant. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) IT was Shamsher Singh, father of the prosecutrix, who submitted written complaint Ex.PE before ASI Pohap Singh, Incharge, Police Post Kulana. He stated therein that he was having two sons and a daughter. His daughter, who was 12 years of age, was studying in a private school. On 12.2.2002, when he had gone for collecting the milk, his wife Jagmati was present in the house, alongwith the children. At about noon time, when the complainant returned home, he was told by his wife about their girl leaving the house in the morning for going to the school. Later on, it was found that her books were lying in the house. Accordingly, the complainant went to the school and learnt that his daughter had not reached the school that day.

(3.) THE complainant and other members of his family kept on searching for the girl but all in vain. On 13.2.2002, one Inder Singh apprised the complainant that he had seen his daughter at noon time going on foot with the appellant towards village Machroli. Both the complainant and Inder Singh continued searching for his daughter but she could not be found. Then they went to the house of the appellant but he too was not present at his house. The complainant became suspicions about his daughter having been taken away by the appellant by making misrepresentation. Accordingly, he left for reporting the matter to the police. At about 11.30 a.m., when he reached Kulana Chowk, he came across ASI Pohap Singh, to whom he submitted written complaint.