- (1.) NAJE Alam, sole appellant is convicted for offences under Section 364, I.P.C. read with Section 3 (2) (v) of S.C./S.T. Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000, and in the event of default in depositing the fine, further imprisonment of one month, vide judgment and order dated 3.4.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Bijnore in Session Trial No. 396 of 2005, State v. NAJE Alam.
(2.) THE incident is alleged to have taken place on 4.2.2005 at 4.30 p.m. in village Kanakpur Kala, Police Station Najibabad, district Bijnore. According to the prosecution case, a written information was given on 6.2.2005 at Police Station Najibabad by Suresh son of Swaroop Singh, resident of village Kanakpur Khurd, Police Station Najibabad, district Bijnore. The scribe of written information is one Rajesh Singh, son of Hori Singh. This information dated 6.2.2005 Exb. Ka-1 was that daughter of Suresh, Km. Neelam aged about 13 years had gone to bring fodder (Chara) along with her sister Renu aged about 8 years, to his Chak on 4th February, 2005 at 4.30 p.m. The chak of Hasimuddin son of Chhote, resident of Kanakpur Kala is also situated nearby. Renu returned alone and told her mother that son of Hasimuddin, Naje Alam, appellant, has taken away Neelam forcibly. There was one lady in Naqab (Burka) along with him. Suresh tried to search for Neelam and when he could not trace her, information was given to the police. However, the first information report was registered only on 7.2.2005 at 12.25 a.m, lodged by Suresh and the scribe was Rajesh Singh son of Hori Singh. The report was registered at case crime No. 166 of 2005, under Section 364, I.P.C. read with Section 3 (2) (v) of S.C./S.T. Act. The prosecution has examined five witnesses. Suresh P.W.-1 is the first informant, Renu P.W.-2 sister of the victim, Rajo P.W.-3, mother of the victim, C-258 Shyam Lal P.W.-4 to prove the chik Exb. Ka-2, Radhey Mohan Bharadwaj P.W.-5 who investigated the case. P.W.-5 submitted the charge-sheet. One Shamim Ahmad was examined as D.W.-1 who was the village chowkidar.
(3.) SRI Mukhtar Alam learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the admitted facts are that Smt. Rajo P.W.-3 was earlier married to one Ompal and victim Km. Neelam and her elder sister Kiran, were the two daughters born from the wedlock of Rajo and Ompal. It is an admitted fact that complainant Suresh was not father of the victim. Rajo had married with the complainant subsequently, after the death of her first husband (father of the victim) Ompal and three daughters were born from the second marriage. The complainant (second husband of Rajo) was also married earlier with one Chhama who had given birth to one female child Pinki. The marriage of Rajo was performed after death of his first wife Smt. Chhama. Pinki is married but her husband has left her therefore, she is living with Suresh and Rajo. The submission of learned counsel is that at the time of incident the appellant was juvenile. Connected Criminal Revision No. 722 of 2007 is against the order dated 7.2.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Appeal No. Nil of 2007, Naje Alam v. State of U. P., dismissing the appeal at the stage of admission itself under Section 52 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The appeal was preferred against order dated 10.1.2007 passed by the Juvenile Board holding that the age of revisionist was 18 years, 2 months 14 days at the time of incident.;