(1.) THE sole appellant has been convicted under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, He was further convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. However, both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case in short is that on 4.2.1993, the appellant Umesh Poddar came to the resident of the informant at 9 p.m. in connection with purchase of wheat and returned back to his house just after the talk with the informant. THE informant also went to sleep and while he was sleeping his wife came and informed the informant that his daughter Parvati Kumari was not present in the house. THEreafter, the informant searched his daughter, but she was not traced out. THEreafter, one Singheshwar Prasad told him that the daughter of the informant and Urnesh Poddar were going Yesterday night on a motorcycle. THEreafter, the informant went to the house of the appellant and where he learnt from his family members that the Umesh was also not present since Yesterday night, then the informant suspected that the appellant Umesh Poddar had kidnapped his daughter and thereafter, he submitted a written report to the police on the basis of which the FIR was registered against the appellant under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code. THE police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Ultimately the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. THE appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has been falsely implication in this case.
(3.) THE Court below on the appreciation of the evidence so adduced has rightly come to the conclusion and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge. Accordingly the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is upheld and this appeal is dismissed.