STATE OF J & K Vs. MADAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Condl (CR) No.43/2016:

(2.) The prosecution story in nutshell is that mother of the prosecutrix, namely, Santosh Kumari, on 04.01.2011 made a written report to the SHO that on 31.12.2010 at about 5 p.m. in the evening, the respondent kidnapped her daughter and has taken her to some unknown place. Thereupon, the first information report for an offence under Section 363, RPC initially was lodged against the respondent. On 20.02.2011, the complainant made a telephone call to the Investigating Officer informing that respondent has kept the prosecutrix in Ward No.4, Bari Brahmana. Thereupon, the Investigating Officer along with constable went to the aforesaid locality and recovered the prosecutrix and arrested the respondent. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164-A, CrPC from which it was revealed that the respondent after kidnapping the prosecutrix had taken her to State of Chhatisgarh and had sexually assaulted her for 52 days, as a result of which, she became pregnant and brought her back to Bari Brahmana. Thereupon the offence under Section 376 of the RPC was also added against the respondent. The charge sheet was filed against the respondent.

(3.) The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as five witnesses.