- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.4.2007 whereby the present appellant has been convicted for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and has been sentenced as under:- JUDGEMENT_1953_RAJLW3_2012Image1.jpg
(2.) THE short facts of the case are that on 4.9.2006, Parmeshwar Thakur lodged a missing report regarding her daughter Aarti. THEreafter, on 6.9.2006, he lodged another report stating therein that her daughter is minor one and present appellant Jagdish has taken her away. It was also stated that Jagdish was used to call his daughter and he has taken Aarti to Almora. On this report, FIR No. 330/2006 was registered at PS. Sodala, Jaipur under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. On receiving information, the police recovered Aarti from the custody of Jagdish at Village Belaf, District Almora and after usual investigation, challan was filed against the present appellant for under Sections 363, 366-A, 376 and 120-B IPC and for co-accused Smt. Sunita Rai for the offences under Sections 363/120-B and 366/120-B IPC. After hearing both the parties and considering the material on record, the present appellant has been charged for the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and Smt. Sunita Rai has also been charged for the offences under Sections 363/120-B and 366A/120-B IPC. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnessed and exhibited 21 documents in supports of its case. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No witness was produced in defence and exhibited 4 documents. The accused-appellant did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. After considering the material on record, the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Co-accused Sunita Rai has been acquitted of the charges. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned judgment. The contention of the present appellant is that the prosecutrix is major one and she went with him on her own will. She was 19 vears old at the time of incident. They wanted to solemnize marriage with each other and the prosecutrix has consented the whole incident. This contention has also been made in the statement of the accused-appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the contention of the present appellant is that when the prosecutrix is major one and she has consented to marry with the present appellant, no offence has been committed by the present appellant and hence he should be acquitted of the charges.;