STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. VED PRAKASH
LAWS(UTN)-2013-7-81
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on July 10,2013

STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Appellant
VERSUS
VED PRAKASH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder for the State/appellant and Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate for the respondents.
(2.) AT the outset, it needs to be mentioned here that the present matter pertains to Section 376 of the I.P.C. By an amendment in the I.P.C., Section 228A has been inserted vide Act No. 43 of 1983, which bars the disclosure of the identity of the prosecutrix by publication and in fact it makes it an offence. Although, printing and publication in a law journal may not be included in the definition of "printing and publication", yet purely for reasons of abundant precaution, the name of the alleged victim has not been mentioned in the present judgment and the victim is only addressed here as the "prosecutrix". The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 08.05.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Dehradun in Sessions Trial No. 38/1996, whereby the respondents/accused, i.e. Ved Prakash was acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Sections 376(g) I.P.C. and respondent Draupadi was acquitted from the charges under Sections 363 & 366 I.P.C.
(3.) THE brief facts of the prosecution story are that an F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the prosecutrix i.e. Gaj Bahadur Thapa P.W. 2 at Police Station Cantt, Dehradun on 28.11.1995 at 1:30 P.M. alleging that on 27.10.1995 his daughter went to learn typing at a place Kishan Nagar, Dehradun, but did not return and since then she is missing. It was further stated that he suspects that his first wife, namely, Draupadi, with whom he has no relationship for the last many years, has kidnapped his daughter. He also informed that his first wife Draupadi, her husband Ved Prakash and Satendra their son kidnapped his daughter. It was further informed that his daughter who is a minor was kept in the house of Draupadi and later she was taken to some other place. The informant made a search for her at every possible place, but in vain.;


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