VISHAL GUND @ AMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Vishal challenging the judgment dated 28.1.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jodhpur Metro in Sessions Case No.50/2011, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced as below: U/s.363 IPC 5 Years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months' S.I.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant Anil Puri PW12 submitted a written report Ex.P15 to the SHO Police Station Sadar Kotwali, Jodhpur. It was alleged in the report that the complainant's daughter aged 131/2 years, student of the 8th standard in Naveen Adarsh Vidhya Mandir, Ram Chowk with her date of birth being 9.8.1997, went missing without any information and was not traceable after 6.3.2011. The complainant suspected that his minor daughter had been kidnapped by Aman S/o Prakash Harijan with intention of marrying her. A photograph (Ex.P6) of the kidnapped girl was also submitted alongwith the report. On the basis of this report, an FIR No.48/2011 was registered at the Police Station Kotwali Jodhpur. The girl Ms.'L' (hereinafter referred to as the prosecutrix) alongwith the appellant voluntarily appeared at the police station on 22.3.2011. She was sought to be handed over in guardianship of her father but refused. On her medical examination being conducted, it was observed that her hymen was not intact and she was found to be habituated to sexual intercourse.

(3.) The accused was arrested on the same day i.e on 22.3.2011. The prosecutrix was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C on 22.3.2011. She stated that she had come into contact with the accused about 11/2 years ago. Both of them developed intimacy. They decided to marry each other on 6.3.2011. Accordingly, she left her father's house, joined the appellant and both boarded a bus for Jaipur. Thereafter, she married the appellant at a temple at Jaipur and started living with him as his wife. She specifically stated that she established consensual sexual relations with the appellant. On count of her refusal to go with her parents, the prosecutrix was sent to the Nari Niketan. Thereafter, she was produced before the Magistrate on the prosecution's application and was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 28.3.2011. In the said statement Ex.P5, she reiterated the version, which she had deposed to the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. She emphasised having intimate relations with the accused over a period of 11/2 2 years. She stated that she called the accused on 6.3.2011 and threatened him that if he did not agree to marry her then she would commit suicide. She left her father's house of her own free will. The accused requested her to rethink over her decision but she remained adamant on her plan to marry him. Thereafter, she asked the accused to take her to some other place. Thereafter, both of them went to Jaipur. They checked into a Dharamshala at Jaipur. Thereafter, they went to a temple and married each other.