SUNIL PATEL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT â € '' Sunil Patel has filed the present appeal impugning judgment of conviction dated 27.11.2003 and order of sentence dated 28.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Karnal whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each, besides, pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences punishable under Sections 366/376 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, besides, pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC.

(2.) AS per the prosecution version, FIR No. 54 dated 26.03.2003 (Ex.PD/2) was registered on the statement (Ex.PD) of the complainant, Smt. Ram Kali. Complainant â € '' Ram Kali stated that her husband was working in defence security core. She has five children, eldest of them is the prosecutrix aged about 17 years and 10 months. Her daughter (prosecutrix) was matriculate and was employed in a cardboard factory since the last one month. She worked there for the month of February 2003 but was presently at home. On 21.03.2009, complainant â € '' Ram Kali had gone to village Jamalpur to attend the marriage of daughter of her mother's sister. On returning from the marriage on 23.03.2003, she found her eldest daughter (prosecutrix) missing. On inquiry from her younger daughter, Neelam, who had stayed back, it came to light that Ram Phal son of Mehar Singh of their village had come to their house on 22.03.2003. Her daughter had gone with him and did not return thereafter. When she asked Ram Phal, it is revealed that Ram Phal had come to their house to call her daughter (prosecutrix) on the asking of appellant â € '' Sunil Patel. It is stated that her daughter (prosecutrix) did not come back thereafter. It was stated that her daughter had been enticed away and kidnapped by appellant â € '' Sunil Patel in order to marry her. Ram Phal and Sunita, who were working at the factory facilitated the kidnapping of her daughter. Initially, a case under Sections 363/366A IPC was registered.

(3.) ON completion of investigation, Challan/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented only against the present appellant â € '' Sunil Patel. Case was committed to the court of Sessions on 11.05.2003. Charge was framed against the appellant -accused on 05.06.2003 to which he pleaded innocence and claimed trial.