Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1950 (PNJ)

Mahabir v. State Of Haryana

2010-07-06

SABINA

body2010
Judgment Sabina, J. 1. Accused-appellant-Mahabir was convicted for an offence under Sections 363,366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `the IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar vide judgment dated 14.9.1999 . Vide order dated 18.9.1999 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 363 IPC; he was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of RS. 1000/- for an offence under Section 366 IPC and he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 376 IPC. All the substantive sentences of the accused were ordered to run concurrently. Hence, the present appeal by the accused-appellant. 2. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No. 2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below :- "2.Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution as alleged are that on 3.7.98 Dagla Ram PW met Janaradan, SI and gave application to the effect that he is residing in the huts in Sector 15-A since last 15 years, along with his family members. He has got two daughters and four sons. He has stated that his elder daughter Abha is married while his younger daughter Anchi is also married since the last 7/8 years at Ambala but her Muklawa ceremony was not performed. He has stated that on 2.7.98 at about 1.00 p.m. his daughter Anchi was not found in the huts so he has searched for her and lodged the report on 3.7.98 in the Civil Lines Police Station. They have also searched their daughter at their own level but could not search the same. Mahabir @ Pappu was residing at a distance of 200/250 yards from his hut who was also not found. Mahabir was doing the labour work, alongwith them and he has a doubt that Mahabir has abducted his daughter. At this formal FIR was recorded. Accused was arrested from Ding Mandi Railway Station and the prosecutrix was also recovered along with the accused. The prosecutrix and the accused were got medicolegally examined. Accused was arrested. After completion of necessary investigation, the challan was put up to the Court for trial purpose." 3. At this formal FIR was recorded. Accused was arrested from Ding Mandi Railway Station and the prosecutrix was also recovered along with the accused. The prosecutrix and the accused were got medicolegally examined. Accused was arrested. After completion of necessary investigation, the challan was put up to the Court for trial purpose." 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. Learned counsel has submitted that the appellant is the sole bread earner of the family and is facing the criminal proceedings since the year 1998. Prosecutrix was already married at the time of alleged incident and there is no documentary evidence available on record qua her age. No ossification test of the prosecutrix has been conducted. Appellant has undergone more than 2 years and 4 months of actual sentence. Learned counsel has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to already undergone by him. 4. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, it is a fit case where the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant is liable to be reduced to already undergone by the appellant. 5. Accordingly, the 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. Fine, if not deposited, be deposited by the appellant within two months from today failing which this appeal shall stand dismissed. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.