RAJINDER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the judgment dated 20.1.1997 and order dated 22.1.1997, passed by the court of Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak, who convicted the appellant u/ss 366-A and 376, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 10 years u/s 376, IPC. The appellant was further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo RI for six months. Appellant was also directed to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/s 366-A, IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo RI for six months. Both the sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 25.1.1996, the prosecutrix Poonam, aged about 13 years, daughter of the complainant, had gone to Jot Ram Jain Middle School, Babra Mohallah, Rohtak, along with her younger sister Rekha and two brothers at about 8.30 a.m. as usual. The complainant, who is the original resident of Jhajjar used to reside in a rented house at Rohtak during those days. The prosecutrix Poonam was a student of 5th class. At about 9.30 a.m., Rekha returned home from school and told her parents that Poonam, who had gone to school with them kept her school bag in the school came out and, thereafter, she had not reached the school. The complainant along with Rekha went to the school and learnt that Poonam had disappeared somewhere after going to the school in the morning. The complainant searched for his daughter Poonam but could not trace her. In the evening, he lodged report with the police by making statement, Ex. PC, mentioning that some unknown person appeared to have kidnapped Poonam. On the basis of this statement, FIR, Ex. PC/1, was recorded and the investigation started by ASI Ram Bhaj. On 29.2.1996, ASI Ram Bhaj along with HC Lekh Ram and other police officials and the complainant Ishwar Singh and his brother-in-law Subhash were present at the Bus Stand, Rohtak. At the time, the prosecutrix Poonam along with the present appellant and his wife Santosh alias Shanti appeared there. The complainant identified his daughter and the appellant and his wife, who used to reside in a rented house in the neighbourhood of the complainant. The police apprehended the appellant and his wife and recovered the girl from their custody. Recovery memo, Ex. PF, was prepared in this regard. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded, who implicated the appellant and his wife of kidnaping her. The prosecutrix further implicated the present appellant by alleging that he had been committing sexual intercourse with her by detaining her custody inside a room from 25.1.1996 onwards. The statement of the prosecutrix was also recorded u/s 164, Cr.P.C., in the court of the CJM, Rohtak. It was also stated by the prosecutrix that even prior to 25.1.1996, the appellant Rajinder used to call her at his house on the pretext of showing films and used to have sexual intercourse with her. Rough site plan, Ex. PQ, of the place of occurrence was also prepared by the I.O.

(3.) THE copy of the birth entry, Ex. PD, of the prosecutrix showed that the Date of Birth of the prosecutrix was 23.10.1991 and this documentary evidence was taken into possession by the I.O. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, semen was detected on the underwear of the prosecutrix and also on the underwear of the appellant.