SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 26.09.2002/28.09.2002, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, vide which the appellant was sentenced to the following punishment:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_265_LAWS(P&H)4_2016_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The factual aspects first. A complaint was lodged on 26.05.2001 and it was disclosed by Duni Chand that his daughter Roopa was married in October, 2000 with Sushil Kumar. Roopa returned home after a month. She went missing in December, 2000. After six months, the brother of the victim found her purchasing vegetables in a village. Bharat Lal and his cousin Pawan Kumar went up to the prosecutrix and she was brought home and it is thereafter the FIR was lodged under Sections 376, 366, 344, 506 IPC at Police Station Pundri. The maternal uncle of the prosecutrix is said to have enticed her. The victim accused the appellant of rape.

(3.) The police investigated the matter and filed the challan. Charge was framed under Sections 376, 366, 344, 506 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.