MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 28.04.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. 2, Sikar Headquarter-Srimadhopur (for short 'the trial court') whereby accused-appellant Ram Chandra has been convicted for offences under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC and sentenced under Section 363 IPC to seven years' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment thereof, he was to further undergo six months additional simple imprisonment; under Section 366A IPC, to ten years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment thereof, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment and under Section 376 IPC, to life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default whereof, to further undergo six months simple imprisonment. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) Facts of the case are that a written report (Exhibit P-2) was submitted by Bhagwati (P.W.1) to SHO, Police Station Srimadhopur, District Sikar that she was a resident of Kanagatwali Tan Gram Kariri. Her father, mother, brother etc. were residing in Village Futala, Police Station Srimadhopur. About three months ago, her brother Ram Chandra, mother Soni Devi and father Tulsaram hatched up a conspiracy and pursuant to that, they asked her (informant) and her husband Kailash that since they have no child in the family, informant and her husband should allow their daughter Suman to stay with them. Believing them, they allowed Suman, who was aged 12 years of age, to stay with them. On 23.08.2011, when the informant came to her parents' house at Futala on the occasion of Rakhi, she did not find Suman there. Her brother Ram Chandra was also not found there. When she enquired from her parents, they informed that Suman had gone for playing with her friends. When Suman did not return for quite some time, she again enquired from them, they informed that they have sent Suman to school. When enquiry was made from the school, Suman could not be found there also. This created doubt in her mind. The informant then informed her in laws upon which Nand Kishore, Jhabar, Jagdish etc. came to village Futala. All of them pressurized mother and father of the informant to disclose the correct fact about Suman. It was thereupon they were told that Ram Chandra had taken Suman to Chithwadi and did not tell anything more. When they called Ram Chandra on his cell phone no. 9799084087, he did not firstly give any satisfactory answer but lastly said that he had taken Suman with him and now he had arranged her marriage with someone in lieu of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Then he switched off his cell phone. The informant and members of her in-laws family went to Chithwadi, but neither Ram Chandra nor Suman were traceable there. There they met informant's sister Anchi and her husband Sadhuram, who also threatened the informant of dire consequences and said that they had abducted Suman and sold her for Rs. 2,00,000/- and the informant was free to do whatever she wanted to do. Allegation in the written report was made that Ram Chandra, brother of informant, Soni Devi, mother of the informant, Tulsaram, father of the informant, Anchi Devi, sister of the informant and Sadhuram, husband of Anchi Devi hatched up a conspiracy and in pursuance thereof after abducting Suman, sold her for marriage. Therefore, action be taken against them.
(3.) On the basis of aforesaid written report, the police lodged FIR No. 284/2011 for offences under Sections 363, 366A and 120B IPC. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Srimadhopur. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikar from where it was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FT) No. 2, Sikar Headquarter, Srimadhopur. The trial court framed charges against the accused-appellant under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC, which he denied and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. Defence did not produce any witness or document. The accused-appellant in its examination under Section denied allegations and stated that he was working as driver on a trolla of Shahpura, which he used to drive from Jamnagar to Ghaziabad. On 15.08.2011, i.e. on the date of incident; he was on that route and not in the Village Futala. He had a dispute with uncle of his brother-in-law (gainer) Harphool since 2007. His brother-in-law had brokered the sale of their land and embezzled a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- out of the sale proceeds and when the accused demanded said money, Harphool even subjected him to beating 2- 3 times. Harphool happens to be uncle of father of Suman and present case was registered at his instance due to the enmity. Jhabar, another paternal uncle of Suman wanted to get Suman married with someone else, which was opposed by accused two months before the alleged incident. He too was instrumental in filing of this false case. The trial court, on conclusion of trial, vide judgment and order dated 28.04.2012 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant in the manner indicated herein above. Hence, this appeal.;