NEERAJ KADAM SINGH SAINI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-4
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on May 02,2013

Neeraj Kadam Singh Saini Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and order 05.02.2009, passed by III Fast Track Court/ Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial No. 186 of 2001, Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2002 and Sessions Trial No. 289 of 2002, whereby said court has convicted accused Neeraj (appellant) under section 363, 366 and 376 IPC, and one punishable under section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 363 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 366 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and directed to pay fine of ' 6,000/- under section 376 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- under section under section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. By the same judgment and order the trial court has convicted co- accused/appellant Munshi Mewa Lal under section 368 IPC and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- . He (Munshi Mewa Lal) has been further convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- under section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short S.C & S.T. (P.A.) Act).
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower courtrecord.
(3.) Prosecution story, in brief is that on 02.12.2000 P.W.4 Tarachand gave a report at Police Station Pathri stating that since preceding night his minor daughter Sangeeta (P.W.1) was missing. On 07.12.2000 P.W.4 Tarachand gave anotherreport (Ex. A6) at the Police Station complaining that his minor daughter was enticed away by accused/appellant Neeraj of his village. Treating said report dated 07.12.2000 as FIR, Crime No. 128 of 2000 was registered at Police Station Pathrirelating to offences punishable under section 363, 366, 376 IPC and one punishable under section 3(1)x) of S.C.& S.T. (P.A.) Act. The investigation was taken up by P.W.5 Shiv Charan Singh (Circle Officer City) who recovered the girl and interrogated the witnesses. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.9 Roshan Lal Sharma the then Circle Officer, Laksar. During investigation section 376 IPC was added to the crime. The girl was medically examined. Her statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. On completion of investigation one charge sheet (Ex. A10) was filed against accused Neeraj (appellant) for his trial in respect of offences punishable under section 363, 366, 376 IPC and one punishable under section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, 1989. Another charge sheet (Ex. A18) was filed against accused Lalu (brother of Neeraj) and accused Kadam Singh (father of the Neeraj) for their trial in respect of above offences. The third charge sheet (Ex. A19) was also filed by the Circle Officer (Investigating Officer) against accused Munshi Mewa Lal for his trial in respect of offence punishable under section 368 IPC, and one punishable under section 3(1)(x) of S.C.& S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989. Sessions Trial No. 186 of 2001 arose out of charge sheet Ex. A10, Sessions Trial No. 81 of 2002 arose out of charge sheet Ex. A19 and Sessions Trial No. 289 of 2002 arose out of charge sheet Ex. A18 after cases were committed to the court of sessions.;


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