DHANI RAM AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of above two criminal appeals as these arise out of the same judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21/24.4.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat.

(2.) The above two criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 21/24.4.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, whereby accused -appellants Rajbir Singh, Dhani Ram and Seth have been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Ss. 363, 366, 368 and 376(2)((g) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offence under Sec. 376(2)(g) IPC. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months each for the offence under Sec. 368 IPC. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months each for the offence under Sec. 366 IPC. They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Sec. 363 IPC. All the substantive sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement Ex.PC of complainant Siri Chand. He stated that he has four sons and six daughters. The prosecutrix is the youngest of all, whose age is 14 -15 years and she is primary pass. On 4.12.1998, as usual, she went to her bed in the 'Verandah' of the house. But, in the morning at about 3.00 a.m. when his wife Raj Kali woke -up, she found the prosecutrix missing. Thereafter, she informed this fact to the complainant and complainant's son Ishwar. They started to search their daughter. Ramesh, who is the son -in -law of Pancha Jhimer informed that in the night at about 1.00 a.m. he saw Rajbir taking the prosecutrix on a bicycle while going towards Village Khewra. Then they searched the prosecutrix and according to the complainant, accused -Rajbir kidnapped his daughter from his lawful custody by alluring and enticing her for effecting marriage with the help of his relative Chander Pal and other co -accused. After necessary investigation, challan was presented in the Court.