LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-399

ANITA AND ORS. Vs. SOMBIR AND ORS.

Decided On September 03, 2015
Anita And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Sombir And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed the present appeal for challenging the judgment and order dated 16/17.3.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, to the extent of acquitting respondents Begh Singh, Sandeep @ Shetty and Naveen of the charges under Ss. 363, 366 -A/34, 120 -B and 328 IPC besides acquitting accused -Begh Singh of the charge under Sec. 216 IPC. The appellants have also prayed for enhancing the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed upon accused -Sombir by the trial Court and for disbursing the amount of fine to them as compensation. The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on 15.4.2013, appellant -Jagmohan submitted application Ex. P4 before Sub -Inspector Ajit Singh, who alongwith Constable Dharam Singh was present at village Tigrana, in connection with official work. In the said application, appellant -Jagmohan expressed suspicion against accused -Sombir of having enticed away his minor niece.

(2.) The trial Court acquitted accused Begh Singh, Sandeep @ Shetty and Naveen of all the charges against them. However, accused -Sombir was convicted under Sec. 363 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He was further convicted under Sec. 366 -AIPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine ofRs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Sec. 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for appellants, this Court finds that in the application Ex. P4, appellant -Jagmohan did not name Begh Singh as an accused. Five days later i.e. on 20.4.2013, SI Ajit Singh recorded the supplementary statement of appellant -Jagmohan, who alleged that accused Begh Singh had provided money and shelter to accused -Sombir. However, during her examination under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix did not state anything about the involvement of Begh Singh in the commission of crime in any manner. Under these circumstances, no fault can be found in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court to the extent of acquitting accused -Begh Singh of the charges against him.