Ranjana Pandya, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case.
(2.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Ghaziabad in Sessions Trial No. 275 of 2009 (State v. Sabir and another), under sections 363, 366 and 376(2)(Chha) IPC, Police Station Loni, District Ghaziabad, whereby the accused appellant has been convicted under section 363, 366 and 376(2)(Chha) IPC and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment each under sections 363 and 366 IPC and a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - each, ten years' RI under section 376(2)(Chha) and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - with default stipulation. In brief, the facts of the case are that a written report was lodged by Naseem Uddin, which was scribed by Anil Kumar, stating that the informant was resident of C -821 Monika Vihar, police station Loni, district Ghaziabad. On 28.10.2008 at about 6.00 p.m. his daughter Rukhsar aged 15 years went to the market to purchase some house -hold goods, but she did not return. On enquiry, the informant was told that the accused Sabir and Riyazul alias Gopal had taken her away to Delhi. Both the accused persons were known to the informant as they used to come to his house. On the basis of this written report, the case was registered at Case Crime No. 1604 of 2008 and investigation was entrusted to S.I. Rajendra Chandra Pandey, PW -5. He started the investigation, copied the copy of the report and chik in his case diary. Later on, he recorded the statement of the victim, witness Naresh, inspected the spot, prepared the site plan and proved it as Ext. Ka -5 and submitted charge sheet against the accused and proved it as Ext. Ka -5.
(3.) THE prosecution examined total five witnesses. PW -1 is Naseem Uddin, who is the complainant and father of the victim. He proved the report as Ext. Ka -1. PW -2 is Ansaro Khatoon, who is the mother of the victim. PW -3 is the victim of the case. PW -4 is HCP, Gajendra Kumar, who prepared the chik report and proved it as Ext. Ka -3 and made entries in the G.D. and proved it as Ext. Ka -3. After examination of all the five witnesses, prosecution closed his evidence.;