ATAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 01.12.2015 passed by Special Judge (Women Atrocity and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.20/2014, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent Shyam Sunder from the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 01.10.2013, the appellant filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh against Sunder, Gurjant, Balbeer, Laxmi and Ramesh while alleging that on 23.09.2013 he was sleeping along with his family members and when he awoke, he found that his 16 years' old daughter was not in the house. He further alleged that his brother-in-law Santram told him that two days ago, Ramesh Bawri had threatened him that he would kidnap the daughter of the appellant and forcibly marry her with Sunder. The appellant also alleged that when he made search of his house, he found that <FONT FACE= "rupi foradian">L 15000.00 is missing, which was kept in trunk. It was also alleged that daughter of the appellant was wearing some gold and silver ornaments. The appellant had belief that the above named person had kidnapped his daughter. The complaint filed by the appellant was sent to the Police Station, Sadar Suratgarh under section 156(3) Crimial P.C. for investigation and an FIR No.276/2013 was lodged at Police Station, Sadar, Suratgarh for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366 IPC. The police had also filed charge-sheet against the accused-respondent Shyam Sunder and the trial court framed charges against him for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A IPC. During the course of trial, the prosecution got examined as many as six witnesses and also exhibited 12 documents. Statements of accused-respondent Shyam Sunder were recorded under section 313 CrPC, wherein he has specifically stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case.

(3.) The trial court, after hearing the parties concerned, has acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under sections 363 and 366A Penal Code vide impugned judgment.