- (1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 25-07-2006 passed by the learned Ad ditional Sessions Judge, Haldwani, Nainital in Sessions Trial No. 88 of 2005, State Vs. Joga Ram, whereby the appel lant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 4 years with a fine of Rs. 5. 000/- u/s 366 I. P. C. The appellant has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a pe riod of 7 years with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 366 I. P. C. In default of pay ment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo four months imprisonment. The sentences shall run concurrently.
(2.) THE fact, in nutshell, are that on 01-04-2005 at about 5:05 pm, Nandan Singh, the brother of the prosecutrix lodged a report in the police station al leging therein that on 03-01-2005 a per son claiming himself to be Arjun Singh (appellant) came to the house of Kishan Singh Negi and Ballam Singh, maternal uncles of the prosecutrix. THE appellant told them that he is working in B. S. F. and at present he is posted in Jammu and Kashmir. He wanted to marry with the prosecutrix, sister of Nandan Singh. THEreupon, the complainant party told appellant that they would talk to the girl and inform him accordingly about this. In the meantime, the appellant visited the house of Nandan Singh twice or thrice. It is further alleged that on 06-01-2005, the prosecutrix went to Ramnagar market and did not return home. In this regard a missing report Ex. Ka. 2 was lodged with the police sta tion on' the next day. It was alleged in the report that on 06-01-2005 the ac cused/appellant took the prosecutrix for cibly without her consent on giving threats from one place to another. Later on, it was revealed that the appellant was not posted in B. S. F. and his actual name is Joga Ram. He was the resident of Kaladhungi. THE appellant took the prosecutrix firstly to 3arjia Temple; then Rudrapur in a hotel in the night where sexual intercourse was committed with her; thereafter Chandel Farm of Ajeet Singh; and lastly she was taken to Bareilly in the farm of Hardayal Singh. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix received information through a friend of the appellant on telephone that the per son (appellant) with whom she was liv ing was not Arjun Singh but his actual name is Jogi Ram. THEreafter, on 30-03-2005 the prosecutrix made a tel ephonic call to Khim Singh who hap pens to be her uncle. She told him that she was living with the appellant in the farm of Hardayal Singh at Bareilly. On the next day, Khim Singh informed Nandan Singh about the said telephone message of the prosecutrix. THEreafter they went to search of the prosecutrix in the farm of Hardayal Singh at Nawabganj, Bareilly. THEy took the ap pellant and the prosecutrix to Ramnagar on the next day in the morning. THEy were taken to their village Dhella and thereafter in the evening a report was lodged in the police station. THE appel lant was handed over to the police. THE matter was investigated by the police. THE prosecutrix was examined by the doctor and after completing the investi gation, the police submitted the chargesheet before the court concerned. After submission of chargesheet, the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and the trial court framed charge u/s 363, 366 and 376 I. P. C. against the accused/ appellant. The accus3d/appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed his trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined Pratap Singh PW1, Khim Singh PW2, Nandan Singh PW3, Prosecutrix PW4, Dr. Bhagirathi Garbuyal PW5, Dr. J. K. Jha PW6 and S. I. Salauddin PW7. Pratap Singh PW1 is the neighbour of Nandan Singh PW3. He has narrated the entire incident how the appellant came in the house of the prosecutrix and what conversations took place with the family members of the prosecutrix. Khim Singh PW2 is the un cle of the prosecutrix who has stated the entire episode in his evidence. He has also received the telephone on 30-03-2005 from the prosecutrix from Bareilly about her whereabouts. He went to the house of the Hardayal Singh with other persons to recover the prosecutrix and the appellant. Nandan Singh PW3 is the brother of the prosecutrix who had nar rated the entire story as unfolded by the prosecution. The prosecutrix PW4 had narrated the entire incident. Dr. Bhagirathi Garbyal PW5 is the Medical Officer who had conducted the medical examination of the prosecutrix. She has given the following opinion in her evi dence : i. No mark of injury and abrasion seen on any part of body. Secondary sex character are devel oped. ii. No mark of injury seen in pri vate part of body. Labia mezora and minora well developed. Hy men torn up. Vagina admitted two fingers easily. It is pregnant as per ut. Size in 8-10 weeks. No mark of injury seen in any part of body. Vaginal semen sent to pathology for evidence of sper matozoa. The doctor has further opined that the prosecutrix was regnant at the time of medical examination. The doctor has further stated that she has prepared the report Ex. Ka. 3 at the time of medical examination of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was referred to Radiologist for ascertaining the age. Dr. J. K. Jha PW6 is the Radiologist who conducted the x-ray of the prosecutrix. He found the prosecutrix to be aged in between 19 to 20 years. S. I. Salauddin PW7 is the Investigating Officer of this case.
(3.) THE accused/appellant was ex amined u/s 313 Cr. P. C. and he has pleaded not guilty to the offence. THE appellant further stated that he has been falsely implicated by the witnesses in this case. THE accused/appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence. The learned Sessions Judge, af ter appreciation of the evidence and hearing the parties convicted the appel lant and sentenced him as indicated above.;