Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramu vs State Of Haryana on 20 May, 2010
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No.241-SB of 2000
Date of decision: May 20, 2010
Ramu
.. Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Rampal Verma, Advocate for
Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Addl. A.G. Haryana for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J The accused appellant Ramu and Mahavir (non-appellant) were prosecuted allegedly kidnapping the minor girl namely Reena aged about 6- ½ years, therefore, they were tried and vide judgment dated 8.2.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, accused-appellant Ramu was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 363 read with Section 511 IPC. However, accused Mahavir was acquitted of the charges.
On 30.4.1998, Reena was sleeping on the Chabutra outside of her house and Sibban (PW1) was also sleeping near her. The accused came during mid night and took Reena away. When he reached near the house of Roop Chand, Subhadra (PW6), who used to serve, Reena identified him in the electric bulb light. Reena asked the accused as to where he was taking her away. In the meantime, dog started barking, therefore, the accused ran away after leaving Reena there. While weeping, she went back to the house of Subhadra and told her about the act of the accused. Sibban (PW1) and his brother Om Parkash (PW5) also went to the house of the accused for making enquiries, but the accused fled away. However, they caught hold of him and took him to the Panchayat, where the accused confessed his guilt before the Panchayat. The motive behind the occurrence is that Mahavir was in dire need of money and he was to be paid money only on supply of a girl to his money lender. The case was registered vide FIR Ex.P1. On completion of the investigation challan against the accused was presented in Criminal Appeal No.241-SB of 2000 -2- the court.
The accused were charged under Sections 364/511/120-B IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Sibban (PW1), SI Niranjan Lal (PW2), HC Ram Saran (PW3), Reena (PW4), Om Parkaksh (PW5), Subhadra (PW6), ASI Jagdish Singh (PW7), Ravi Ishwar Sarpanch (PW8), Ashok Kumar Draftsman (PW9) and Charan Singh (PW10).
When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. In defence, they examined Roop Chand (DW1).
The trial ended in conviction of Ramu, whereas, accused Mahavir was acquitted of the charges.
Arguments heard. Record perused.
The object of the Section is, at least as much, to protect children of the tender age from being abducted or seduced for improper purposes. The motive in the case is coming up in the manner that the accused in order to fetch loan wanted to offer the services of a girl to his money lender. There are four ingredients to complete the offence which are enumerated as under :-
1. Taking or enticing away a minor or a person of unsound mind.
2. Such minor must be under sixteen years of age, if a male or under eighteen years of age if a female.
3. The taking or enticing must be out of keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind.
4. Such taking or enticing must be without the consent of such guardian.
So far as the aforesaid ingredients are concerned, it is evident that the girl was not 18 years of age and she was taken away from lawful guardianship and the accused took her without the consent of her lawful guardian. The evidence speaks to the volumes that the accused came at the dead of night and picked up Reena when she was sleeping nearby her mother Sibban. Sibban while appearing as PW-1 stated that her daughter Criminal Appeal No.241-SB of 2000 -3- was taken away by the accused. The star witness in the case is Reena (PW4) who after clearing the test of her bring a competent witness stated in unequivocal words that the accused took her away from the Chabutra when she was sleeping on a separate cot in the house of her Bua. When he reached near the house of Roop Chand, she woke up, identified the accused and asked him as to where he was taking her away. It was only when the dog started barking at them, the accused left her. Subhadra (PW6) has corroborated the statement of Reena (PW4). Both the witnesses have withstood the test of cross examination.
There is no inordinate delay in getting the case registered against the accused. The prosecutrix was kidnapped at 12 mid night. Thereafter Sibban and Om Parkash had gone to the house of the accused to enquire and thereafter the FIR was registered at 7.30 a.m. in the morning. The minor discrepancies as pointed out by the learned counsel do not assume importance in view of the peculiar reason that the honour and repute of the family of the prosecutrix was involved and they would be the last persons to sacrifies their family's repute for a false cause.
The defence as set up by the accused appears to be an after thought. Had the story with regard to kidnapping been not correct then Roop Chand DW would have come forward to depose and protest in favour of the accused on the day when he was arrested.
Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the appellant has sought this court's indulgence on the quantum of sentence.
Having pondered over the contention, it is noticed that the occurrence took place on the intervening night of 30.4.1998/1.5.1998. Thus, keeping in view the longevity of the trial, and that the girl was recovered within an hour of the occurrence, it would be in the fitness of the thing to take a lenient view in the matter.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence which is reduced to one year without alteration in the sentence of fine.
Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad for compliance.
May 20, 2010 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge