- (1.) Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated February 12, 2002 of learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Sikar whereby the appellant Ramotar was convicted and sentenced as under :- u/S. 376IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. u/S. 366 IPC : To suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) It is the prosecution case that informant Galku Devi submitted a written report on March 3, 2000 at Police Station Losal with the averments that her grand daughter Usha (fictitious name) aged 12 years had gone to the school on February 28, 2000 around 10 a.m. but did not return back. On ijnquiry it was found that Ramotar (appellant) took her in jeep No. RJ23G/0636. On that report a case was registered and investigation commenced. Site was inspected, statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr PC were recorded and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Sikar. Charges under Sections 366 and 376 IPC were framed against the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 17 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. PC, the appellants claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant did not assail the finding of conviction, but canvassed that in the facts and circumstances of the case imposition of sentence of 10 years is too harsh. Learned Public Prosecutor however opposed the contention.;