KAMAL DUTT Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, dated 23/10/2003, vide which the appellant has been held guilty under S.376, S.366 and S.363 IPC and sentenced as under:

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 29/11/2001 Kumari (S) daughter of Shri. Uma Dutt, student of 10+1, had gone to the school and did not return from the school. After one month, that is, on 29/12/2001, a daily diary report vide rapat Ext. PG was lodged with the police by Uma Dutt, father of the girl that his daughter had gone to school and was missing and he had searched for her in her relatives, but she is not traceable. On 13/01/2002, the complainant, father of the girl, lodged a report with the police that his daughter aged about 17 1/2 years was missing, for which a report was lodged on 29/11/2001. He alleged that his daughter has been taken by the appellant, hereinafter also referred to as the accused, who is the son of elder brother of the complainant. On this report, FIR Ext. PD was registered. On 10/02/2002, the said Uma Dutt learnt from one Padma, who is the daughter of his God sister that she has received a telephonic message from the prosecutrix, who had informed her that she alongwith the accused would be visiting Kalka Temple on the next day. The father of the girl sought police help, went to Kalka and recovered the girl alongwith the accused and Recovery Memo was prepared. The girl was medically examined and after the investigation, the challan was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, who framed the charge under S.363, S.366 and S.376 IPC and tried the appellant, leading to his conviction as detailed above.

(3.) THE first point which arises for consideration is the delay in lodging the FIR, but the said point was not urged by the learned counsel for the appellant and rightly so, for various reasons, which may be mentioned hereinafter. The first report about the missing of the girl was lodged within one month, in which the father of the girl had specifically mentioned that he had been searching for the girl in his relatives and, therefore, could not lodge the report. Thereafter, he learned that the accused may have taken the girl after more than one year and then he lodged the FIR with the police, in which he expressed his doubt upon the appellant. After the said report was registered after one month, the girl was recovered from Kalka alongwith the accused and the case was investigated by the police. The facts of the case are very clear that the missing report was lodged with the police within one month after search of the girl proved futile and till that date, the father of the girl had no doubt that the appellant who was the son of his elder brother was involved in this matter and thereafter, about after one month, recovery was effected. In such type of cases the report cannot be lodged immediately since the honour of the family was involved and, therefore, the delay in question has not affected the merits of the case at all and rightly so, no submissions were made in this regard.