SANJAY KERKETTA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click here to view full judgement.
Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J. -
(1.) This is an appeal directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 9.7.2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur in S.T. No. 190/2000 by which the appellant has been held guilty under sections 363, 366 and 376 (2) (f) the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One thousand) in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 3 (three) months, R. I. for 5 (five) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- (One thousand), in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 3 (three) months, R.I. for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousands), in default of payment of fine to undergo additional R.I. for 1 (one) year, respectively. The appellant is a tenant of father of the prosecutrix. On 5.7.2000, he came to the house of prosecutrix and invited her and her father for taking some sweets, so, both of them went to his house. In his house, the appellant asked Thadiyush Ekka, the father of the prosecutrix to wait till he comes back from tailor-shop. He took the prosecutrix, a girl of ten years, along with him. When neither of them returned back, a search was made to know their whereabouts, but they could not be traced out. Thereafter, father of the prosecutrix lodged a report with the Police on the same day at midnight regarding missing of his daughter. On the next day, in the morning, Police nabbed the appellant and prosecutrix, prepared recovery Panchnama, sent the prosecutrix and appellant for medical examination, recorded the statements of prosecutrix and witnesses, and after due investigation, came to the conclusion that, the appellant has committed offence punishable under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. filed a charge-sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jashpur, who committed the case for trial to the Court of Session. Appellant denied the guilt, and pleaded defence that, the father of the prosecutrix, with intent to get the premises vacated from him, has concocted this false case against him.
(2.) Learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that, the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix, who was aged about 12 years, from the custody of her lawful guardian with intent to commit illicit intercourse and he committed rape on her. The learned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records of the Trial Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.