STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MADHU PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 4/2010 and the accused respondent in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 9/2010 were involved in the same case, arising out of the same FIR. However, as Chetan Puri was subsequently arrested after the trial for the other co-accused persons, namely, Madhu Puri, Phoolshanker, Heera Lal, Smt. Lalita had started, his trial was separately held. Vide two separate judgments, both dated 26.3.2009, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Chhittorgarh, all the respondent accused persons have been acquitted by the learned Judge. Hence, the State has filed these two criminal leave to appeals before this Court. Since both the criminal leave to appeals are related, they are being decided by this common judgment. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 1.2.2008, Udailal (PW.1) lodged a written report, (Ex.P.2) wherein he claimed that his daughter, Kumari Rekha, (PW.3) is a student of 10th Class. According to him, his daughter was born on 17.8.1990. He further claimed that on 1.1.2008, accused Chetan Puri, and Madhu Puri, enticed his daughter and took her away, while she was on her way to the school. Upon receiving the information that his daughter has been abducted by two persons, he reached the house of Sadhu Mangilal and recovered his daughter. When he inquired from his daughter, she informed him that Chetan Puri and Madhu Puri had enticed her and taken her to a sister of Pushkar Bhai. At her house, she was detained in a room till 3.1.2008. However, on 4.1.2008, she managed to escape from that place. She went to her maternal aunt's place from where her father recovered her. He further alleged that on 24.1.2008, while he had gone out for his work, Chetan Puri again came to his house and again took away his daughter. He searched for his daughter. He was informed that Chetan Puri and Madhu Puri have taken his daughter to Parwati's house situated in village Kherwada. On the basis of this report, the police registered a formal FIR, FIR No. 61/2008 and recovered the prosecutrix. Subsequently, the police filed a charge-sheet against Madhu Puri, Phool Shankar, Hirlal and Smt. Lalita for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120B IPC. Against Chetan Puri, investigation was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

(2.) Subsequently, a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against Chetan Puri for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. Both the trials were clubbed together. Vide two different judgments, both dated 26.3.2009, learned trial Judge acquitted accused respondents. Hence, these two criminal leave to appeals before this Court.

(3.) Mr. O.P. Singaria, the learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. According to Rekha (PW.3), the prosecutrix, she had been enticed by Chetan Puri and had been taken by him to different places. She further alleged that Chetan Puri ravished her at different places. She further claimed that she was subjected to rape by other persons also. However despite her testimony, the learned Judge has erroneously acquitted the accused respondents.