Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2206 (RAJ)

Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2023-12-07

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2023
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. Instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Judge, (Women Atrocities Cases), Sriganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court') in Sessions Case No. 17/2014, whereby the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: Name of accused Offence Punishment Vinod kumar 363 IPC One year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of fine to undergo one month S.I. 2. The concise facts of the prosecution case are that on 01.10.2013, the complainant submitted a complaint before the Police Station, Sadulshahar alleging therein that the minor daughter of complainant 'S' studying in Class VIIth standard and one Nitu W/o Vedprakash were friends. It was alleged that on 28.09.2013, Nitu called Simran at her home and at 11 pm, from where accused Vinod Kumar enticed his daughter with the help of Nitu. 3. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR was registered against the appellant being FIR No. 309/2013 for offence under Sections 363, 366, 120B IPC. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet against the appellant and Nitu Rani for offence under Section 366, 363, 120B IPC. Thereafter, charges of the case were framed for offence under Section 363/120B IPC. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed trial. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined three witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side. 5. After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence produced by the prosecution as well as statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court vide judgment dated 03.07.2014 acquitted the co-accused Nitu Rani from offence under Section 363/120B IPC but convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove. 6. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the accused-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 363 IPC inasmuch as on the same set of evidence, the trial court has acquitted the co-accused Nitu Rani but convicted the present appellant. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence wrongly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 363 IPC inasmuch as on the same set of evidence, the trial court has acquitted the co-accused Nitu Rani but convicted the present appellant. It is argued that the victim was examined as PW/1 and in her statement she clearly mentioned that the present appellant Vinod did not entice her or took her forcibly and thus, she has been declared hostile. PW/2 Pyare lal, father of victim during his examination, although mentioned that appellant Vinod enticed away his daughter, however, in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see the appellant Vinod taking away his daughter. PW/3 Investigating officer in his cross examination mentioned that he did not obtain any call details from the mobile phone of the accused and victim. No other witness was examined. It is argued that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence which proved the guilt of the accused appellant. Thus the judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside and the appellant should be acquitted of the offences charged against him. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that learned trial Court after considering the evidence meticulously convicted and sentenced the appellant, therefore, no interference with the impugned judgment is called for. Therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment. 9. I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record. 10. PW/1 is the victim in this case. In her statement, she has denied that she was enticed or forcibly taken by the appellant and thus declared hostile. PW/2 Pyare lal who is the father of victim has also admitted that he did not see appellant taking away his daughter nor he is acquainted with the co-accused Nitu Rani. There are material contradictions in the statement of father of victim. Apart from these witnesses and Investigating officer, no other witness was examined on behalf of prosecution. The victim in her statement has categorically stated that she accompanied the appellant to visit temple. The prosecution, in fact, has not been able to prove that the victim was induced by the appellant. PW/1, victim has not stated about enticement. The statement of PW/1, the victim does not prove the prosecution case under Section 363 IPC. The victim in her statement has categorically stated that she accompanied the appellant to visit temple. The prosecution, in fact, has not been able to prove that the victim was induced by the appellant. PW/1, victim has not stated about enticement. The statement of PW/1, the victim does not prove the prosecution case under Section 363 IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 363 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 11. In view of foregoing discussion, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 03.07.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Sriganganagar is set aside and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the offence charged against him. Appellant is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds are discharged. 12. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.