- (1.) The instant application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), has been filed by the applicant, seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.3.2012.
(2.) The applicant moved an application against accusedrespondents with the allegations that his minor daughter was enticed away by the accused. However, in order to avoid repetition and also for the sake of brevity, it would be appropriate to refer to the facts noted by the learned trial Court, which read as under:- "2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Subhash son of Dani Ram, father of the victim moved an application to police on March 28, 2009, interalia detailing about the circumstances when his minor daughter of fourteen years of age was allegedly enticed away. He detailed that his daughter is a student of ninth class in Hindu Vidhya Mandir High School, at Sonepat. He is resident of village Kalupur and is running a Kriyana shop. On March 26, 2009 he and his family had dozed to sleep at about 9 p.m. In the morning at about 6 a.m. when he woke up he found his daughter Anjli missing. On search she could not be traced. Complainant also informed the police that one Rinku son of Jai Narayan, resident of village Kalupur now resident of Tara Nagar Sonepat, used to make advances towards his daughter. He has once lodged a protest to his father, who had promised to desist his son. Now Rinku was also not available at home therefore, he has every reason to suspect that his daughter has been enticed away by Rinku aforesaid. 3. A case for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 363, 366 of the Indian Penal Code was therefore lodged. The matter was investigated. During the course of investigation it was revealed that Neeraj son of Jai Singh friend of Rinku and Surender Pal @ Garauv son of Sant Ram the driver of the Van in which the victim was kidnapped were also involved in the crime. They were arrested in this case on May 21, 2009. However, accused Rinku could not be traced and was initially declared a proclaimed offender. a) During the course of further investigation complainant made a supplementary statement to the police on September 24, 2010 and informed the police that Bimla mother of Rinku and Jai Narain father of Rinku as well as Satish brother-inlaw of Rinku and Ravi all were also involved in the crime who were then arrested in this case on September 25, 2010. b) During the course of further investigation on October 21, 2010 accused Rinku was arrested in this case and victim of the crime was recovered from his possession. Both victim and accused were subjected to medico-legal examination. Statement of the prosecutrix was got recorded before the court of Area Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well by police. She was then handed over to her parents. Opinion qua age of the victim was sought. Since she was found to be a minor, offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was added. c) During the course of further investigation one Vickey @ Vikas brother of Rinku was also found involved in the crime and offence under 216 of Indian Penal Code was added. d) On completion of investigation total five accused namely, Neeraj, Surender, Rinku, Vikas & Ravi were challaned to face trial for the commission of the alleged crime whereas accused Bimla wife of Jai Narain, Jai Narain son of Inder and Satish son of Suresh Kumar were not found involved in the crime."
(3.) After carrying out a detailed investigation, as noted above, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented to the learned court of competent jurisdiction. The relevant documents were supplied to the accused, in accordance with law. The offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), having been found to be exclusively triable by the court of session, the case was committed by the learned Magistrate for trial, to the court of session. However, charge was framed only against the accused-respondent Rinku for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.;