BHOOP SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, namely, Bhoop Singh, has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 24.05.2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, vide which, the appellant was convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month under Section 363, IPC, sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 366, IPC and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months under Section 376, IPC.

(2.) The brief facts of the case in hand, recorded by the learned trial Court are that, on 24.11.1998, Attar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector (PW-10) along with other police officials was present at Hansi Chowk, Barwala for patrolling and crime checking. Complainant Dev Dutt (PW-12) met the police party there and moved application Ex.PK. It was submitted by the complainant in his application that he had five children out of which four were daughters and youngest child was the son. Madhu was the eldest and younger to Madhu was the prosecutrix (PW-13), who was aged about 14 years and was student of 8th class. His children including the prosecutrix used to stay and sleep in the Nohra where his uncle Veer Bhan also used to sleep. On the intervening night of 23/24.11.1998, the prosecutrix and other children after doing study work slept in the Nohra as usual. At about 1/1.30 a.m., when his uncle Veer Bhan woke up he found the prosecutrix missing from her cot. Then, he informed him about that fact. He and his family members searched for the prosecutrix in the night but could not know about her whereabouts. He suspected that the accused had kidnapped his daughter.

(3.) After completion of investigation, the challan against the accused-appellant was presented before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar. Since, the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the case was committed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hissar, to the Court of learned Sessions Judge for trial vide order dated 20.02.1999. The charge was framed against the accused-appellant vide order dated 08.03.1999, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.