Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. - (1.) CRIMINAL Leave to Appeal No. 103/2011 has been filed by the State of Rajasthan and S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 71/2010 has been filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 19.12.2009 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur H.Q. Bayana in Sessions Case No. 23/2009, whereby he acquitted the accused respondent Surgyan from the charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. Brief facts of the case are as under: - - The complainant Najjo submitted a typed report (Ex. P -11) at Police Station, Bayana, District Bharatpur in which he alleged that on 8.1.2009, at about 8.00 PM, accused persons Devendra S/o. Banney Singh, Soni S/o. Malke, Bhag Singh S/o. Sarupa, Vijjo S/o. Heera Lal, Mahendra S/o. Pooran, Ashok S/o. Lakhpat, Tulsiram S/o. Hukam, by caste Gurjar, R/o Adda, Police Station Bayana, Bhero Singh S/o. Sahab Singh, Samay Singh S/o. Girraj, R/o Gudriya Pura, Majra Nagla Hota, having common intention and object and armed with weapons, entered into the house of the complainant and they put fire in the Chhapar Posh of the complainant and they abducted 13 years' old Rama. Upon that, the police registered FIR No. 15/2009 for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police filed a challan against the accused respondent for the aforesaid offences in the Court of Magistrate. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, who transferred the same to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Bharatpur. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused respondent for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. The accused respondent denied for the same and claimed for trial. Thereafter the prosecution has examined 20 witnesses and got exhibited some documents. Thereafter the statement of accused respondent were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial court has passed the judgment dated 19.12.2009 acquitting the accused respondent No. 2, as indicated herein -above.
(2.) AGAINST the said judgment, Cr. Leave to Appeal has been filed by the State Government, while Cr. Revision Pt. No. 71/2010 has been filed by the complainant petitioner. Since both the cases have been filed against one judgment passed by the trial court, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common order.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner as also the learned PP have contended that the judgment dated 19.12.2009 passed by the trial court is contrary to the provisions of law. They have further contended that the trial court has committed serious error of law as well as fact in acquitting the accused respondent No. 2 Surgyan from the charge under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial as well as from the material/evidence came on record, the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC is fully made out and proved against the accused respondent and he deserves to be convicted and sentenced for the said charges, but the learned trial court without properly appreciating the evidence available on record, has wrongly and illegally acquitted the accused respondent from all the charges framed against him. In such circumstances, the impugned judgment of acquittal is liable to be quashed and set -aside and the accused respondent deserves to be convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. They have further contended that from the evidence came on record and produced by the prosecution, it is proved that the accused respondent had kidnapped the minor daughter of the complainant namely Rama against her will with intent to commit criminal offence and to commit illicit intercourse. Thus, the offence under Section 366 IPC is fully proved against the accused respondent, but the learned trial court without properly appreciating the evidence came on record, has illegally acquitted the accused respondent form the said charge.;