STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SURGYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Leave to Appeal No. 103/2011 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 71/2010 has been filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 19.12.2009 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur H.Q. Bayana in Sessions Case No. 23/2009, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent Surgyan from the charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. Brief facts of the case are as under: - -

(2.) AGAINST the said judgment, Cr. Leave to Appeal has been filed by the State Government, while Cr. Revision Pt. No. 71/2010 has been filed by the complainant petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner as also the learned PP have contended that the judgment dated 19.12.2009 passed by the trial court is contrary to the provisions of law. They have further contended that the trial court has committed serious error of law as well as fact in acquitting the accused respondent No. 2 Surgyan from the charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial as well as from the material/evidence came on record, the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC is fully made out and proved against the accused respondent and he deserves to be convicted and sentenced for the said charges, but the learned trial court without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, has wrongly and illegally acquitted the accused respondent from all the charges framed against him. In such circumstances, the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be quashed and set -aside and the accused respondent deserves to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. They have further contended that from the evidence came on record and produced by the prosecution, it is proved that the accused respondent had kidnapped the minor daughter of the complainant namely Rama against her will with intent to commit criminal offence and to commit illicit intercourse. Thus, the offence under Section 366 IPC is fully proved against the accused respondent, but the learned trial court without properly appreciating the evidence came on record, has illegally acquitted the accused respondent form the said charge.