The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the victim's testimony in cases of rape, the sensitivity required in dealing with such cases, and the application of the principles of proportionality in sentencing.

ORDER :

Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 21.5.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Kannauj, this jail appeal has been preferred by appellant in S.T. No. 139 of 2013, Case Crime No. 538 of 2012, under sections 363, 366, 376, 328, 506 I.P.C. Appellant has been convicted under section 363 I.P.C. for 7 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/-, under section 366 I.P.C. for 7 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/-, under section 376 I.P.C. for 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 10,000/-, under section 328 I.P.C. for 7 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- and under section 506 I.P.C. for 3 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, three moths further imprisonment in each. After depositing the fine, imposed upon the applicant, Rs. 25,000/- shall be given to the victim as a compensation. All the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows-:

The complainant (father of the victim)/P.W. 1 lodged an F.I.R. on 9.8.2012 against the appellant by way of filing an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. alleging that his daughter (victim) was a student of Class VIII and on 23.7.2011 at 7.30 A.M., victim (aged about 13 years) went to school at Mochipur for studying. That after some time complainant received a call on his mobile phone by Kamlesh and Hariram. They told the complainant that his daughter was seen accompanying with appellant/Ashok @ Gore Lal and two other persons in Chhebramau Civil Court, Kannauj. That after receiving this information, complainant searched his daughter in several places but he could not succeed in locating her. The daughter of the complainant came back at her home at 4.00 P.M. on the same day told that when she was on the way of her school and reached at a deserted place, accused-appellant/Ashok @ Gore Lal alongwith one unknown person were came on a motorcycle and abducted her and thrown her books into drain and fed her some poisonous substance and raped her one by one on the point of gun. After that they have forcefully abducted his daughter and executed written marriage agreement by obtaining the thumb impression of her daughter against her will. That due to shame of society he did not make any complaint anywhere. But when the appellant constantly started threatening to complainant by saying that I will forcefully kidnapped your daughter and get married with her and now victim is his wife. Then he went to Kannauj Police Station and made a written complaint by registered post to the S.S.P. Kannauj and other higher authorities but when no action was taken by the higher authorities, then he approached to C.J.M. Kannauj and lodged an F.I.R. Ex. Ka-2 by way of application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as Case Crime No. 538 of 2012 was lodged on 29.8.2012 against the appellant and one unknown person under sections 363, 366, 376, 328, 506 I.P.C. at Police Station Kannauj, District Kannauj by way of G.D. Entry (Ex. Ka-3) Serial No. 32 at 15.15 P.M. Initially the investigation was conducted by S.I. Hamid Ali (who is P.W. 7). S.I. Hamid Ali recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site plan as Ex. Ka-8. Thereafter further investigation was conducted by subsequent Investigating Officer, Tushar Dutt Tyagi as P.W. 8, who after conducting the formalities of investigation, filed the chargesheet Ex. Ka-9 against the appellant before the competent court and the case was committed to the Sessions Court by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kannauj. Thereafter learned trial court framed charge against the accused under sections 376, 363, 506, 328, 366 I.P.C. The charge is read over to the appellant and appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. In support of the prosecution case, prosecution has examined 8 witnesses i.e. P.W. 1/daughter (victim) of the complainant, P.W. 2 Mahesh (father of th