PRATAP KASHINATH GULVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-2024-4-1
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: AURANGABAD)
Decided on April 01,2024

Pratap Kashinath Gulve Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Convict for offence under Ss. 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) hereby challenges judgment and order dtd. 12/2/2002 passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad recording guilt for above offences and sentencing accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offences and to pay fine.
FACTS LEADING TO THE TRIAL

(2.)First Information Report (FIR) exh.34 was lodged by father PW1 Ganpati alleging that he has two daughters, aged 13 years and 15 years respectively. On 21/11/1993 after having worked in the agricultural field, they returned home at around 06:00 p.m. Thereafter, his daughters went to answer call of nature. Only one daughter namely Sunita returned home. Sangita, who did not return, was searched for. He learnt that accused had met Sangita and had taken her away. Therefore, he lodged report exh.34. PW7 Kondare (PSI), who was entrusted with investigation, carried out and completed the same and on gathering evidence, chargesheeted accused, who was finally tried by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad vide Sessions Case no.53 of 1999. Learned trial Judge examined in all nine witnesses and also gone through the documentary evidence like FIR, panchanama etc. and finally held case of prosecution proved and convicted appellant for commission of offence under Ss. 363 and 366 of the IPC.
SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant :

(3.)Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is false implication. That no one had seen accused kidnapping the victim girl. That the girl herself does not speak of being kidnapped. That though prosecution claims that girl was taken by accused to various places, there is no witness on that count. He pointed out that at no point of time, victim raised alarm or informed anyone about she being kidnapped. That infact girl had left on her own. That there was no removal from custody of her parents. Therefore, necessary ingredients for attracting offence under Sec. 363 of the IPC is missing. Further according to accused, essential ingredients for attracting charge under Sec. 366 of the IPC is also missing. That there is no evidence of accusation about she being taken away on the pretext of performing marriage. That learned trial Court has not appreciated prosecution evidence in proper perspective. Further according to him, law has also not been correctly applied. That evidence of prosecution was not sufficient to record guilt as prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays to interfere by allowing the appeal.
On behalf of State :



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.