- (1.) Challenge in the appeal is to the legality and propriety of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.02.2009 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewari, in Sessions case No. RT/35 of 2008/2007, emanating from FIR No. 157 dated 12.07.2007, under Sections 363, 366A, 376 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short-IPC) registered at Police Station Khol, whereby, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 366A IPC and to-undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone by the appellant during investigation/inquiry/trial of the instant case was ordered to set off from the substantive sentences.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 10.07.2007 at about 5.00 p.m., appellant entered into the house of Satnarayan (complainant) father of the prosecutrix with a bad intention and when he reached the house after providing fodder to the cattle, he (appellant) fled away from their house by jumping from the roof of the house. Two ladies of their village, who had come there to collect firewood, heard the noise of jumping. The matter was reported to village Panchayat, as also, to the uncles of the appellant, thereupon, accomplice of the appellant namely Nirmala (mother of the appellant) said that now her son had only entered their house and in future, he would elope with their daughter. On the next day i.e. on 11.07.2007, prosecutrix whose date of birth was 05.12.1992 and was studying in 10th standard in Government Senior Secondary School, Jainabad had gone to the school in school dress. Thereafter, Santa daughter of Subhash, who is the cousin of appellant took prosecutrix to her house under a pre-planned scheme. Appellant and Krishna wife of Subhash were already present there and, thereafter, appellant took prosecutrix to an unknown place by alluring her under a pre-planned scheme. She was searched, but could not be found.
(3.) Satnarayan (complainant) on 12.07.2007 at about 12.50 p.m. met the police party headed by Harpal Singh ASI at bus stand, Dahina and moved an application Ex. PD containing aforementioned allegations, whereon, Harpal Singh ASI made endorsement Ex. PD/3 and sent the same to the police station, where formal FIR Ex. PD/1 was recorded. He moved an application Ex. PK to the Principal Government High School, Jainabad and latter made endorsement regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix Ex. PK/1. Harpal Singh ASI arrested the appellant. He visited the spot and prepared rough site plan Ex. PL. He also got the appellant medico legally examined from Civil Hospital. On 13.07.2007 after medical examination of the appellant, he made parcel of his (appellant's) underwear, which was seized vide memo Ex. PN and that parcel was sent to Chemical Examiner, Madhuban. On the same day, he had obtained parcel after medical examination of the prosecutrix and seized that parcel vide memo Ex. PG. On 14.07.2007, he moved an application Ex. PJ for getting recorded statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C.;