Hon'ble Dr. GOMBER, J.—The appellant-Madan Lal has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.4.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Sikar in special case no. 262/2006 whereby he was convicted and sentenced as under:

(i) 03 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.200/- in default whereof to further undergo 15 days' additional simple imprisonment for offence under Sec.363 IPC;

(ii) 05 years' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.300/- in default whereof to further undergo one month's additional simple imprisonment for offence under Sec.366A IPC;

(iii) 07 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof to further undergo two months' additional simple imprisonment for offence under Sec.376 IPC; and

(iv) 03 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.100/-, in default whereof to further undergo 15 days' additional simple imprisonment for offence under Sec.3(i)(xii) of SC/ST Act.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein-after for short referred to as 'the Code')

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on the written report Ex.P-5 submitted by complainant Kana Ram at P.S. Khatu Shyamji on 26.9.2006 at about 4.10 pm to the effect that accused Madanlal, who was a tenant in the neighbouring house, abducted his minor girl Renu on 23.9.2006 at about 12 in the afternoon. Case was registered for offences under Sections 363 & 366 IPC and formal FIR No.101/2006 Ex.P-6 was chalked.

3. During the course of investigation, his daughter Renu was recovered vide Ex.P7 from Guna (M.P.) and was handed over to her mother PW-11 Sitadevi vide Ex.P4. Her statements (Ex.D5) under Section 164 of the Code were recorded, wherein she deposed her age as 13 years. Her school record with regard to her age was seized which showed her date of birth as 12.12.1992. She was medically examined by gynecologist who prepared report Ex.P12. Her oscillation test for determination of age was conducted and her age as per radiological report Ex.P.14, was found to be more than 15 and less than 17 years. The appellant was arrested vide Ex.P1. He was medically examined and was found capable of performing sec vide Ex.P15.The clothes of the prosecutrix as also vaginal smear, vaginal swabs etc were sealed and sent for forensic laboratory report. The clothes of accused were also seized vide Ex.P2. FSL & serological report Ex.P19 & Ex.P20 were recovered and after usual investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the accused appellant for offences under Secs. 363, 366/366A, 376 IPC and u/Sec.3(i)(xii) of SC/ST Act.

4. The case being triable by Sessions, was committed and transferred to the Court of Special Judge, who, after hearing the charge arguments, read over the charges for offences mentioned herein-above to the appellant, which were denied by him and trial was claimed.

5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. After the prosecution evidence was completed, statements of appellant under Section 313 of the Code were recorded wherein he alleged false implication, but did not lead any defence. He, however, exhibited 10 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D-10. Learned trial court, after hearing the parties, and on the basis of record, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offences in the manner mentioned herein-above.

6. It is this judgment which has been assailed by way of present appeal by the appellant on following grounds :-

i) First submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was predicated to the delay in filing the FIR. It was submitted that the report was lodged on 26th September for the incident alleged to have occurred on 23.9.2006 and said delay had not been explained.

ii) Second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the learned trial court has committed error in holding the prosecutrix as minor beca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document