LALIT SINGH VOHRA ALIAS RAHUL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-6-11
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on June 14,2013

Lalit Singh Vohra Alias Rahul Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Inder Singh s/o Atar Singh and Surendra s/o Banwari wrote a missing report to the police station Sahaspur, District Dehradun that their daughters namely, Reena and Reetu were missing from the factory since 11.07.2005. Both the fathers of the missing girls alleged that their daughters went to the factory as usual on 11.07.2005 also, but they did not return home. Missing report (Ext. Ka-1) was therefore lodged at police station Sahaspur. The said report was lodged on 10.08.2005 at 11:15 A.M. The missing girls were recovered on 03.10.2005 from the possession of the accused persons namely, Balbir Singh Bisht and Lalit Singh Vohra alias Rahul.
(2.) After the investigation, chargesheet (Ext. Ka-12) was submitted against Balbir Singh Bisht and Lalit Singh Vohra alias Rahul in respect of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. When the trial began and prosecution opened it's case, charges for the selfsame offences were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(3.) PW1 Surendra Singh, PW2 Inder Singh, PW3 Reena, PW4 Reetu, PW5 Dr. Deepali (Medical Officer), PW6 Dr. D.S. Rawat (Radiologist), PW7 S.I. Nirvikar (Investigating Officer), PW8 Smt. Usha Devi (Head Mistress), PW9 Gulab Singh Pundir (Head Master) and PW10 Head Constable Ramesh Lal were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in reply to which they said that they were falsely implicated in the case. They said that no such incident took place. No evidence was given in defence.;


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