Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RANG NATH PANDEY, J.
Arvind - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1889 of 2017
Decided On : 27-05-2019
Theft - Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code - Section 363, Section 366, Section 376, Section 506 - The court discussed the essential ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the concept of kidnapping from lawful guardianship and the distinction between kidnapping and abduction. The court also highlighted the burden of proof on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence of the accused. The medical evidence and contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements were crucial in the court's decision to acquit the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The daughter of the informant had a love affair with the co-villager, who wanted to take her away. The accused eloped with the daughter, and the accused persons were threatening the informant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused appellant not guilty of the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, based on the lack of sustainable evidence and the questionable propensity of the prosecutrix.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the burden of proof on the prosecution, the presumption of innocence of the accused, and the need for trustworthy evidence. The court also highlighted the essential ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and the distinction between kidnapping and abduction.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the accused appellant was acquitted on all counts. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the fine, if realized, was to be refunded to the appellant. The lower court's record was to be sent back, and the appellant was to be set at liberty at once if not required in any other criminal case.
JUDGMENT :
RANG NATH PANDEY, J.
1. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 23.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Hardoi in Sessions Trial No.513 of 2013 arising out of case crime no. 373 of 2012, under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 I.P.C. relating to the Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District-Hardoi, accused-appellant, namely, Ramshankar was acquitted under Sections 363, 366 and 506 IPC. Whereas accused appellant, namely, Arvind was convicted and sentenced him under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC. Whereby accused-appellant, namely, Arvind has been convicted and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.2,000/-with default stipulation; seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 366 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.3,000/-with default stipulation; nine years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation; two years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.1000/-, with default stipulation. The substantive sentences awarded to the appellant was directed to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that the daughter of informant Ramnath, Kumari Rinki @ Shilpi had love affairs with co-villager Arvind Kumar, son of Satte. For this, Arvind Kumar wanted to take away his daughter Kumari Rinki @ Shilpi. Somehow, he came to know this and he sent his daughter to her grandfather’s home so that Arvind Kumar could not take away his daughter. But Arvind Kumar with the help of his brothers eloped his daughter on 28.05.2012 at 10.00 A.M. whom he has been searching. Accused persons are threatening him.
3. In order to prove the case, P.W.1 Ramnath (Complainant), P.W.-2 Victim, P.W.-3 Dr. Sangeeta Srivastava, P.W.-4 Dr. Indra Singh, P.W.-5 Smt. Bishakha (Principal), P.W.-6 Sub Inspector Ajay Chaudhari and P.W.-7 Head Constable Vishambhar Dyal Gupta were examined by the prosecution.
4. After the prosecution evidence is over, the statement of the accused will be recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused asked the whole incident to be wrong and to file a case due to enmity. Accused Arvind has stated in his additional statement that due to village partybandi a fake report has been made. Accused Ramshankar in his additional statement said that due to Arvind’s brother-in-law, I was falsely implicated in this case.
5. Learned Trial Court after hearing the prosecution and appreciating evidence led before it, found appellant guilty and sentenced him as above.
6. According to counsel for the appellant, the theory of rape was not at all supported by the medical evidence. P.W.3 Dr. Sangeeta Srivastava, who had seen and examined the victim girl, has stated in her statement that on 13.07.2012 she had conducted the medical examination of daughter of Ramnath. On the general check-up, prosecutrix was average built, breasts were developed. There was no mark of injury present around private part. On the basis of the report supplied by the Radiologist, all epiphysis around elbow were fused. Victim's age was concluded about 18 years and no definite opinion had been given regarding rape.
7. It was one of the main contentions of counsel for the appellant that the testimony of the prosecutrix becomes highly doubtful and suspicious because of multiple contradictions and omissions on the vital aspects of prosecution case, as she has stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had eloped with Arvind out of her own sweet will. There were major contradictions between the statement made under Sections 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement given during trial. Learned Counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance in the case of Vijay Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi.
8. It is no longer res integra that the age determined on the basis of Ossification test is to have margin of 2-3 years either side. As per the medical repor
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
