Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1597 (PNJ)

Shiv Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2010-05-06

SABINA

body2010
Judgment Sabina, J. 1. Appellant was convicted for an offence under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) vide judgment dated 18.7.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Gurgaon. Vide order dated 21.7.2007, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 363 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- under Section 366 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under Section 376 IPC. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- "Bijender Singh father of the prosecutrix made a complaint to the police on 23.3.2006 to this effect that the prosecutrix is his daughter and is about 15 years old and she was a student of 9th class. On 13.3.2006 at about 8.00 a.m. She had gone to Government Girls High School, Bhondsi for studying but she did not come back. It is further alleged that both the accused were tenants in his house and on 12.3.2006 they had vacated his house and had started residing in a house behind the girls school. These accused also left their house on 13.6.2006. Complainant went on searching for his daughter and came to know that Shiv Kumar and Vikas accused have enticed away his daughter". 3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to already undergone by him. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in custody for the last more than four years. The appellant was 20 years old at the time of alleged occurrence. The prosecutrix had gone to different places with the appellant but had not raised any alarm. Now the prosecutrix has got married. The appellant is a young man and has already suffered enough. 4. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant is liable to be reduced to already undergone by him. 5. Now the prosecutrix has got married. The appellant is a young man and has already suffered enough. 4. Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant is liable to be reduced to already undergone by him. 5. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to already undergone by him. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith subject to deposit of fine imposed by the trial Court, if not already deposited by him. 6. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.