S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 134/2013. Case: Ganpat Vs State of Rajasthan. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 134/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Vinay Pal Yadav, Adv. and For Respondents: Sudesh Kumar Saini, Public Prosecutor |
| Judges | Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 164, 374; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 343, 363, 366, 375, 376 |
| Judgement Date | February 08, 2017 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Judgment:
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
-
This criminal appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.1.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Women Attrocities Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 34/2011 whereby the learned trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 363 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, also convicted for offence under Section 366 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, further convicted for offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and also convicted for offence under Section 343 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. It was further directed that all the substantive sentences would run concurrently.
-
Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the complainant Shri Bhairu Ram (PW3) father of the prosecutrix on 4.1.2011 lodged a written report (Ex. P14) at Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur City (South) with the averment that his daughter aged 15 years without any information went away on 3.1.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. from their house and she could not be found despite search being made by them. It was prayed that necessary steps may be taken in this regard. On the basis of this report Missing Person Report No. 1/2011 was registered at 5.20 p.m. on the same day and investigation in the matter commenced.
-
Before prosecutrix could be traced, on 11.1.2011 second written report (Ex. P1) was lodged by the complainant in the same Police Station with the allegation that one Shri Ganpat son of Shri Bhanwar Lal Khatik, who was running a Juice Shop near his Kirana Shop since last 3-4 months in conspiracy with his family members, has abducted his daughter aged 15 years on 3.1.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. when she was going to her College. It was further averred that the aforesaid fact has been gathered by him from the information provided to him by some persons. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR No. 10/2011 for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. During the course of investigation prosecutrix was recovered on 26.1.2011 at 10.30 a.m. from Bhiwadi in the company of appellant and her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded and she was medically examined. From the further evidence collected during the course of investigation offences under Sections 343 and 376 IPC were also added and after usual investigation charge-sheet for aforesaid offences was filed against the appellant. In order to prove the charges, prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas appellant denied the charges levelled against him and the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution but in defence no evidence was produced. Learned trial Court after hearing both the...
To continue reading
Request your trial