AMARSINH KALUSINH SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-2016-9-67
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on September 12,2016

Amarsinh Kalusinh Solanki Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.7.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad, Sessions Case No.30 of 2012 whereby original accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further RI for six months for the offence punishable under sections 363 of Indian Penal code ('IPC' for short), RI for five years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo further RI for six months for the offence punishable under sections 366 of IPC and RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo further RI for six months for the offence punishable under sections 376 of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was given set off for the period undergone in jail.
(2.) Short facts of the case of the prosecution are that a complaint came to be filed by the complainantManjulaben Ramchandra Aanopsinh Solanki on 26.1.2012 against the accused before Chaklasi Police Station being I.C.R.No.13 of 2012 alleging inter alia that on 4.11.2011 she and her daughter aged about 17 years and 4 months went to the field. At about 3.00 p.m., her daughter went to Talavdi and thereafter she did not return and therefore, a missing complaint was filed on 9.11.2011 before Chaklasi Police Station. Upon inquiry, it was informed by her sister-in-law that her daughter is taken to Karamsad Hospital by one Amarsinh Kalusinh Solanki of her Village due to illness and on 21.1.2012 when she, her husband and sister-in-law went to the hospital, it was informed by her daughter that she was forcefully taken by the accused for the purpose of marrying against her will. In pursuance of the said complaint, investigation started and as there appeared prima facie case against the accused, a charge sheet was filed against him. Thereafter, charge was framed against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 2.1 To prove the guilt against the accused, prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses. The prosecution also relied on several documentary evidence numbering 27. After filing of closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of accused under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. 2.2 On conclusion of trial and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, impugned judgment and order as aforesaid in the earlier part of this judgment was delivered giving rise to the present appeal.
(3.) Heard learned advocate, Mr. P.V.Patadiya for the appellant-original accused and Mr. K.L. Pandya, for the respondent-State.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.