HARLAL & OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused-appellants have preferred these appeals under Sec. 374 Cr.RC. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.06.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 59/2006 whereby they have been convicted for offences under Sections 376 (2) (g) and 366 Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of ten years and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Sec. 376 (2) (g) Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 1,000.00, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment, for six months for offence under Sec. 366 I PC. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Since these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment and order, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The brief relevant facts for the disposal of these appeals are that the complainant PW3-Gulabnath, father of the prosecutrix, submitted a written report (Ex.D3) on 29.3.2006 at 12.30 p.m. before Police Station Gegal (District Ajmer) alleging therein that his daughter (prosecutrix) aged 14 years in the evening of 25.3.200S went in the forest to collect fire-woods but since then she has not returned and in spite of efforts being made for her search she has not been found. It was further stated that by a secret source, it has come into their knowledge that the appellants Setha, Vishram and Shankar have abducted his daughter. It was also stated therein that Shri Dharma Nath and Madan Nath have seen them taking his daughter with them. On the basis of that report, FIR No. 43/2006 for offences under Sec. 363 and 366 Penal Code was registered and after usual investigation charge sheet was filed against present appellants and one Shri Amar Chand for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) (g) IPC. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was recovered on 31.3.2006 from the custody of RPF, Jaipur and her statement under Sec. 164 Cr.RC. was also recorded and she was medically examined. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence, whereas each of the appellants in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr.RC. denied the allegation and evidence of the prosecution and specifically stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. In their defence, the appellants produced DW1-Roopa, DW2-Madan, DW3-Harlal and DW4-Bhagchand and they also produced documentary evidence.

(3.) The trial court after appreciating and evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing both the parties, arrived at the conclusion that the appellants are guilty of offences under Sections 366 and 376 (2) (g) Penal Code and by passing the impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. Hence, the instant separate appeals. It is pertinent to note that the trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove that the time of incident the prosecutrix was below the age of 18 years. It is also to be noted that the trial Court acquitted the accused-Amar Chand from the charges levelled against him under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. During the course of hearing of these appeals the prosecution has not challenged the finding of the trial court regarding age of the prosecutrix.