- (1.) ALL the three criminal appeals i.e. [(Criminal Appeal No.270 of 2011 -Pintoo @ Arun Kumar), (Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2011 -Anupam Verma and Another) and (Criminal Appeal No.258 of 2011 -Updesh Kumar Verma and Another)] arise out of a common judgment, therefore, the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) THE instant Criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 13.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Sitapur, in Sessions Trial No.284 of 2006 and Sessions Trial No.868 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No.1576 of 2005, Police Station Kotwali, District Sitapur, whereby all the appellants were tried for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC. In this case the appellant Updesh Kumar Verma was summoned during trial in exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the trial court. By the impugned judgment, the appellant Pintoo alias Arun Kumar was convicted for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC. However, the appellant Raju alias Ajay Kumar, his wife Smt. Renu Verma and Smt. Anupam Verma were convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 366 IPC and appellant Updesh Verma was convicted for the offence under Section 368 IPC. For the offence under Section 376 IPC the appellant Pintoo @ Arun Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and also with fine of Rs.10,000/ - with default stipulation of one year's additional imprisonment. For the offence under Section 363 IPC the appellant Pintoo alias Arun Kumar was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also with fine of Rs.5000/ - with default stipulation of one year's additional imprisonment. These appellants were also convicted for the offence under Section 366 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and also with fine of Rs.5000/ - with default stipulation of one year's additional imprisonment. The appellant Updesh Kumar Verma was convicted for the offence under Section 368 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and also with fine of Rs.5000/ - with default stipulation of one year's additional imprisonment. The appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 506 IPC.
(3.) ALL the sentences were directed to run concurrently. According to the version of the FIR, the case of the prosecution was that the complainant Smt. Sushila moved an application which was typed on 08.10.2005 addressed to SHO, Kotwali Sitapur alleging therein that on 05.10.2005 at about 7.00 a.m. his minor daughter aged about 16 years (hereinafter referred as victim) had gone to Arya Kanya Inter College, Sitapur, for her studies. She has been enticed away by the appellant from there. It was alleged that the other appellants have helped in enticing away the victim with appellant Pintoo @ Arun Kumar. Since then the whereabouts of the victim are not traceable. When the victim did not come back from the school then a search was made by the family members. During her search, the complainant went to the house of Smt. Renu Verma and Smt. Anupam Verma then they told them that their daughter has been sent with Pintoo alias Arun Kumar and they also threatened them that in case any action is taken then the entire family shall be liquidated. This act of the accused persons made the complainant sure that the victim was in the clutches of the appellants so the victim moved an application in the Kotwali but no action was taken. Thereafter, again the application was moved on 08.10.2005 and on the basis of this application the case was registered on 11.10.2005 at 8.35 a.m. During investigation on 25.10.2005 at 16:00 hrs. the victim was recovered by the police from JIC crossing on the information of a secret informer. Thereafter she was referred for her medical examination. Her medical examination took place on 25.10.2005 at 8.00 p.m. at Duffering Hospital, Sitapur. In her medical examination no mark of any injury was found anywhere on body. Axillary and public hairs were present and breasts were developed. No mark of injury was present on and around her private parts. Hymen was old, torn and healed. Vagina admitted two fingers. Uterus was of normal size. Vaginal smear slides were prepared and sent for pathological test and the victim was referred for X -ray for determination of her age. After X -ray reports, the age of the victim was reported to be about 17 years. The statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was also recorded and after concluding the investigation charge -sheet was filed.;