- (1.)BY way of this appeal, the appellant State has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangandhra dated 02.04.2004 rendered in Sessions Case No.10 of 2003, whereby the learned Trial Judge acquitted the original accused the opponent herein of the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)THE brief facts of the prosecution case are that with a view to having bad intention in the mind of the accused, he had taken prosecutrix, who is niece of Shri Vajubhai from Jesda Village at around 9:00 o'clock on 25.07.2002 by stating that he will get married with the victimprosecutrix and hence offence was registered under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC at Dhrangandhra Police Station being I -C.R.No.109 of 2002. It is the further case of the prosecution that the age of prosecutrix was less than 17 years on the date of incident and when the mother of prosecutrix could not find her, she started inquiry at the house of neighbours, but she could not find her, and therefore, a complaint was lodged as stated hereinabove against accused -Dhirubhai Shivabhai Koli before Dhrangandhra Police Station which is exhibited at Exh:17. Thereafter, as per the prosecution case, the accused has been arrested from Surendranagar, but before that, accused and prosecutrix got married at Jadeshwar Mahadev. Even an affidavit was also made on the stamppaper by prosecutrix that she is 19 years old and after getting married, they went to Chotila and there with the consent of prosecutrix, the accused had relation with the daughter of the complainant. Thereafter, pursuant to the complaint, the accused was arrested.
(3.)AFTER completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed before the learned Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") committed the said case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhrangandra, which was, thereafter, numbered as Sessions Case No.10 of 2003. Since the opponent -accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, he was tried for the alleged offences.
At the time of trial, in order to bring home the charges leveled against the original accused, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as well as the prosecution also produced 17 documentary evidences.