DEV RAJ Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is convicted for offence under Section 363 IPC on the allegation that he kidnapped Ms. Veena Kumari from the lawful guardianship of her parents. FIR Ext.PA was registered at Police Station, Nadaun. According to the allegations made against the petitioner, on 4.7.1995 around 7.30 P.M. the petitioner kidnapped minor Veena daughter of complainant Prithi Chand. At that time, she was aged about 14 years and was studying in 8th class. The case is that she had gone to deliver milk at the residence of Bank Manager at Nadaun, but she did not return thereafter. A thorough search was made, but she could not be traced. The involvement of the petitioner was excited on the basis of suspicion because on the previous night, he had visited the house of the complainant with a proposal of marriage of his sister, with the son of the brother of the complainant. He had disclosed that he has been working as Inspector in the Police Department in Sarahan. In the morning after taking tea etc. he left the house of complainant.

(2.) WHEN search was made for missing minor, some one informed the complainant that she was lastly seen in the company of petitioner herein. The matter was reported to the police by complainant Prithi Chand and First Information Report was lodged and thereafter investigation was carried out in accordance with law.

(3.) TO prove the case, the statement of PW1 Prithi Chand is vital for consideration. He states that the petitioner had visited their house on 4.7.1995 and informed the complainant that he has two sisters and he would like to have one of them married with his nephew. Thereupon, the complainant stated that his nephew was not there. At night, he stayed in the house of his brother(complainant). The further story is that in the morning, minor Veena went to deliver milk at the residence of Bank Manager, Nadaun, but she did not return.