BABLOO Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by accused -appellant, namely, Babloo to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7/8.1.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide which, he has been convicted for offences punishable under Ss. 366 and 376(2)(g) IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - with default clause and RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - with default clause, respectively. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) As per prosecution version, the daughter of the complainant, who was 13/14 years of age did not reach home after doing work. In spite of making of efforts by the complainant -mother, she could not be traced. A complaint was made to the police against two persons, namely, Babloo and Sanjay. On 28.3.2002, the police party accompanied by the complainant and her maternal uncle went to the village of Babloo from where her daughter was recovered. Victim disclosed to the police that she was taken by accused -Sanjay to her house on the pretext that she was called by her father for some urgent work. She further stated that accused -Babloo also met them on the way. On reaching home, she found that no body was present in her home and accused -Babloo forcibly committed rape upon her. Both the accused allured and enticed her to accompany them at different places from bus stand, Pipli to Delhi and then to Kanpur. They stayed in Kanpur for 4 -5 days and they used to sleep at Railway Station at night. On 27.3.2002, accused -Sanjay left Kanpur for Kurukshetra but victim remained with accused -Babloo, who took her to his home District i.e. Unnao on 28.3.2002. After recording the statement of the victim, she was got medico legally examined and FIR was registered against Babloo as well as Sanjay.

(3.) On completion of the investigation, challan was presented against both the accused and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges under Ss. 363, 366 and 376(g) (wrongly mentioned) of IPC were framed against both the accused by Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra. However, later on, on the direction of Administrative Judge, ossification test was conducted and accused -Sanjay being juvenile was sent to Juvenile Court for separate trial and trial was proceeded against accused -Babloo before Sessions Court. Fresh charge for offence punishable under Ss. 363,366 and 376 IPC was framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.