- (1.) Appellant, namely, Ravinder Kumar, has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 29.04.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, vide which, the appellant was convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that the daughter of Babu Ram aged about 13 years, resident of House No. 355, Jaswant Nagar, Jalandhar, was found missing from the house on 09.07.2010 at about 07:00 P.M., after he returned from his duties. On 15.07.2010, Babu Ram went to SI Malkiat Singh of Police Station Division No. 7 and made statement that it was confirmed that his daughter was kidnapped by Chandan Kumar (since proclaimed offender) and accused Ravinder Kumar, aforesaid, played active role in such kidnapping. SI Malkiat Singh registered FIR under Section 363, 366 and 120-B of IPC against the accused and started investigation. The victim girl was recovered and on 18.07.2010, she was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate where she made statement which after translating from Punjabi to English is reproduced as under:- "My name is .... (not to be disclosed). My father's name is Babu Ram. I am resident of Jaswant Nagar. I fell in love with Chandan. I requested Chandan to take me along. Chandan refused but I kept on requesting him on the ground that in the next month I was going to be married. He took me to Ludhiana. We stayed there for a day. Ravinder also accompanied us. Ravinder sent her at 10:00 A.M., to accompany him in order to see Chandan. Ravinder did not take me to Chandan. I requested him to ring Chandan. Then he took me to the house of his relative where 2-3 boys were putting up. Chandan did not find me. He rang Ravinder but Ravinder did not reply his phone. Then Ravinder committed rape on my person. I kept on stopping him from doing so but he did not agree. He also pressed my neck. I then ran from there and Chandan met me at Samrala Chowk. Ravinder told me not to disclose any thing to Chandan. I replied in affirmative. One day Ravinder told us to accompany him for work. We did so. There Ravinder again threatened me that he would not allow me to meet Chandan failing which I would be killed by burning. Then I and Chandan ran away and lived in a rented room at Ludhiana. Then Chandan told me that he would marry me on my attaining the age of 18 years. Then Chandan made to board the bus for my coming to my house. Then I returned to my house."
(2.) After recording the aforesaid statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate, the victim was sent with her parents. SI Malkiat Singh then added offence under Section 376 IPC by way of lodging report in the roznamcha. X-ray examination to ascertain her age was also conducted. Vaginal swabs were preserved and sent to the Chemical Examiner. According to the Chemical Examiner Report, spermatozoa was detected on the vaginal swabs. Accused-Ravinder Kumar was arrested. After completion of entire investigation, accused Ravinder Kumar was challaned to face trial under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B IPC.
(3.) After commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions, the charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC was framed-against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.;