The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court must consider the reliability of the victim's testimony, the presence of serious laches in the prosecution case, and the age of the victim in cases involving charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the appellant, Raju @ Hanuman, against the judgment and order dated 9.9.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.-II, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 2004 : State vs. Raju @ Hanuman, arising out of Case Crime No.478 of 2003 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Thakurganj, District Lucknow, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-III, Lucknow, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated herein-below:-

(I) under Section 363 I.P.C. to undergo 5 years’ R.I and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 6 months’ additional imprisonment;

(II) under Section 366 I.P.C. to undergo 7 years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo 6 months’ additional imprisonment; and

(III) under Section 376 I.P.C. to undergo 10 years’ R.I. and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year’s additional imprisonment.

All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently.”

2. Heard Shri Ehsan Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Alok Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.

3. The prosecution case, as per the written report (Ext. Ka-1), is that the daughter of the informant (P.W.1-Satya Prakash Jaiswal), aged about 13 years went to school from home on 11.9.2003, however, when she did not return to home, then the informant (P.W.1) went to search her daughter but he could not trace her. On the same day, Raju (convict/appellant), who was his tenant, was also missing, therefore, the informant (P.W.1) believed that Raju has enticed her daughter away.

4. Thereafter, informant (P.W.1) got the written report scribed by a man of his locality, who after scribing it read it over to him and thereafter, he affixed his thumb impression on it. He then proceeded to Police Station Thakurganj and lodged it.

5. The evidence of P.W.3-1981 CP Jagannath Soni shows that on 20.09.2003, he was posted as Constable Moharrir at police station Thakurganj and on the said date, at 08:10 p.m. Satya Prakash (P.W.1) came and filed his written report on the basis of which he prepared the chik FIR (Ext. Ka.2).

6. A perusal of the chik FIR shows that the distance between the place of incident and Police Station Thakurganj was 1 kilometer. It is significant to mention that a perusal of the chik FIR also shows that on its basis, a case under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. was registered against appellant.

7. The investigation of the case was conducted by S.I. Lakshsman Singh (P.W.4). In his examination-in-chief, he deposed before the trial Court that on 20.09.2003, in his presence, informant Satya Prakash Jaiswal lodged the FIR at Police Station Thakurganj, on the basis of which an offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. was registered. The investigation of the case was entrusted to him. During investigation, he recorded the statement of the Head Moharrir who prepared the chik F.I.R., informant (P.W.1), sister of the prosecutrix Km. Sarita. He, thereafter, inspected the place of incident and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-4). On 06.10.2003, on the basis of information of informer, he recovered the prosecutrix (P.W.2) from Lal Masjid, Hardoi Road, Lucknow under recovery memo (Ext. Ka-5) and also prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-6), however, appellant managed to escape. He, thereafter, recorded the statement of the prosecutrix as well as Constable Sunita (P.W.5), Constable Basudev, Constable Ramesh Singh and on the basis of the statement of the prosecutrix, Section 376 I.P.C. was added. On 07.10.2023, he arrested the accused/appellant from Tahsilganj Tiraha (a junction of three road) and also recorded his statement. On 15.10.2003, he got the medical report. On 05.11.2003, the statement of the prosecutrix unde