Ranjana Pandya, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mainpuri in ST No. 277 of 2013 (State v/s. Atul Mishra and another), ST No. 574 of 2013 (State v/s. Sonu) arising out of Crime No. 540 of 2012 under Ss. 363, 366, 376 (2) (g) IPC, Police Station Bewar, District Mainpuri whereby all the accused appellants were found guilty. Accused Sonu was convicted and sentenced to undergo seven years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000/ - fine under Sec. 368 IPC and ten years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/ - under Sec. 376 (2) (g) IPC. Whereas accused Atul Mishra and Madhav Dubey were convicted and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/ - under Ss. 366 IPC and ten years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 10,000/ - fine under Sec. 376 (2) (g) IPC with default stipulation.
(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that an FIR was lodged by the informant Shaukin Singh on 19.09.2012 stating that his daughter aged about 16 years had left the house on 17.09.2012 along with Rs. 20,000/ - cash, one golden chain weighing 24 gms, 20 gms golden ear rings and 4 hand rings weighing 25 gms. She was seen by Jiledar and Hakim Singh. When he tried to trace his daughter, he came to know that Atul Mishra had taken away the girl in conspiracy with Madhav Dubey, hence the report was lodged. Later on, an application was given, which was alleged to be signed by the informant stating that the victim was with the brother -in -law of Atul Mishra and Madhav Dubey was also accompanying him. For two days, the victim stayed at Kanpur with Mukesh Kumar who is brother -in -law of Atul Mishra and is working in Jail at Kanpur as constable. The victim is living with other brother -in -laws of Mukesh Kumar. Mukesh Kumar is the main culprit for hiding the victim, but presently the victim is with the brother -in -law of Atul Mishra. If Mukesh Kumar is arrested, then, the whole story would be unfolded. The accused intend to marry the victim to the brother of Mukesh Kumar. On the basis of this FIR PW -5 Constable 165 Yad Ram scribed the chik report, which was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka -5. He further scribed the whole incident in the GD, a copy of which was proved by this witness as Etc. Ka -6. Dr. Saroj Bala PW -6 medically examined the victim on 25.01.2013. She did not find any external or internal injury on the body of victim. The hymen was old torn and healed. The vagina was admitting two fingers easily. Vaginal smear was taken and slides were prepared for pathological examination. The doctor proved the medical report as Ext. Ka -7 and supplementary report as Ext. Ka -8. Investigation was entrusted to PW -8 SI Tarun Kumar. He copies the written report in the Case Diary on 24.04.2012. He recorded the statement of informant Shaukin Singh, inspected the spot at the pointing out of Shaukin Singh and prepared the site -plan marked as Ext. Ka -13 and proved it. He recorded the statements of witnesses namely Jiledar Singh, Hakim singh and other villagers. On 14.10.2012, the application given by Shaukin Singh was copied in the Case Diary. Statement of accused Atul Mishra was recorded in jail. After this witness was transferred, the further investigation was conducted by PW -7 SI Rajesh Kumar. On 07.12.2012, he moved a police custody remand for taking police custody of accused Madhav. He was taken to Kanpur in police custody but the girl could not be found there. Hence, he was readmitted at Kanpur Jail on 08.12.2012. On 25.12.2012, statements of Rahul, Onkar and Vipin were recorded and on 03.01.2013 statement of Ratnesh was recorded. On 12.01.2013, on the basis of information received from the informant the victim was recovered with accused Mangal Singh from village Kuthi, Police Station Kasni. Thereafter, statements of the victim and Mangal were recorded. The recovery memo was proved by this witness as Ext. Ka -9. After the medical examination, statement of victim was recorded, which was copied in the Case Diary. The statement of victim was perused by this witness. This witness had already submitted the charge sheet against accused Atul and Madhav Dubey since the victim could not be traced and investigation was continuing. After the victim was recovered, on the basis of her statement a supplementary charge sheet was submitted against accused Atul Mishra and Madhav Dubey and a charge sheet was produced against accused Sonu, which were proved by this witness as Ext. Ka -10, Ka -11 and Ka -12.
(3.) Besides the aforesaid witness, the prosecution also examined the informant PW -1 Shaukin Singh who proved the initial report as Ext. Ka -1 and the subsequent information given by him as Ext. Ka -2. PW -2 is the victim. PW -3 is Hakim Singh who is said to have seen the victim going away. PW -4 is doctor RC Yadav Pathologist, who proved the pathological report as Ext. Ka -2 (wrongly numbered).;