JUDGMENT :

1. On the last date, status of the appellant was summoned vide order dated 14.12.2022.

Shri Atul Kumar Verma, learned Advocate submits that he has already filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant and confirms that the appellant is alive and therefore, no further report is required.

2. Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anant Pratap Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The present appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 19.09.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ambedkar nagar, in case crime No. 30/2004, S.T. No. 56/2005, under Sections 363/366/376 IPC, P.S. Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar "State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Surendra Yadav and others", whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 363/366/376 IPC I.P.C. and under Section 366 he has been sentenced to undergo for a period of 4 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, under Section 366 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo for a period of 6 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000/-and under Section 376 IPC, he has been sentenced to undergo for a period of 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2000/-, with default provisions in each of the offences. All the punishment to run concurrently.

4. As per the written report, complainant's daughter Pratima Srivastava aged about 14 years has been enticed away by one Surendra in collusion of his parents on 28.05.2004 at about 12 hours in the day. On that day, the complainant and his wife were not present at home, only minor children were present. The prosecutrix on the pretext of going to the house of maternal uncle, went away with the accused persons. The complainant searched his daughter a lot, however, when she was not found, he lodged an F.I.R. on 05.06.2004 which was registered as case crime No. 30/2004, under Sections 363/366/376 IPC at P.S. Hanswar, District Ambedkar Nagar against the accused Surendra, his mother and father. In the F.I.R. he has alleged that when he has inquired at the house of the accused Surendra with his parents, then they started indulging into maar-peet.

5. The investigation was started by Sub Inspector Rameshchandra. The prosecutrix was recovered on 07.07.2004. The investigating officer after recording statement of the prosecution witnesses and preparing site plan has filed charge sheet against the accused persons. Against all the accused persons, charges were framed under Section 363/366 IPC and against Surender charges were framed under Section 376 IPC.

6. Prosecution to prove its case has produced following seven witnesses;-

(i) PW-1 Harikrishan Shrivastava (father of the victim)

(ii) PW-2 Jaykishun Lal (brother of PW-1)

(iii) PW-3 Victim

(iv) PW-4 Dr. Meera Verma

(v) PW-5 Head Constable Ashok Kumar (subscriber of the F.I.R.)

(vi) S.I. R.V. Gautam

(vii) Head Constable Ashok Kumar

7. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded where their case was of denial and stated that due to enmity, they have been falsely implicated.

8. PW-1 Harikrishan Lal Srivastava is the father of the victim. He has stated that on 28.05.2004, he and his wife were not home, they went to see his father-in-law two days ago. On 28.05.2004 at about 2:30 PM when they returned, minor children Ritesh Kumar and Brijesh Kumar who were about 9 years and ten years old, told that victim has gone with Surendra somewhere. When he went to the house of Surendra, then his mother shown sheer ignorance regarding the incident. Thereafter his brother Jai Krishan Lal told him that he saw victim with Surendra around 1:00 PM. He kept on searching victim till evening and also inquired in his relations for one or two days and when he failed in searching his daughter, finally on 05.06.2004, he informed the police station and F.I.R. was lodged which has been exhibited as Ex. Ka-1 and has been proved by PW-1.

9. PW-1 further stated that the victim was recovered af