Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: s.366 ipc in Rinku @ Prempal vs State Of U.P. on 24 April, 2023Matching Fragments
3. By the impugned order, the trial court has convicted the appellant-accused Rinku alias Prempal under Sections 354-B, 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 8 POCSO Act and sentenced the appellant-accused, Rinku @ Prempal u/s 366 I.P.C. to undergo 7 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. The trial court has also convicted the appellant-accused u/s 8 of POCSO Act and sentenced him to undergo 5 years imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. The trial court has acquitted the appellant-accused u/s 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act. There is no criminal appeal filed by the State or victim against acquittal of appellant-accused u/s 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act. Thus, the trial court's order acquitting the accused under these sections has become final.
6. On the basis of written report (Ext.Ka.1) submitted on 12.10.2016 at 9.40 a.m., Case Crime No. 447 of 2016 u/s 363, 366 I.P.C. was registered in police station concerned against Rinku @ Prempal. The chik first information report is (Ext.Ka.5). The registration of the case crime number was simultaneously entered into the general diary at Sr. No. 16 (Ext.Ka.6).
7. The case was investigated by P.W.3 S.I. Yashveer Singh, who was handed over the investigation on 12.10.2016. The victim was recovered on 12.10.2016 and her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. On the basis of the statement of the victim, Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act was added to the case crime number. The statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. of the victim was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate concerned on 14.10.2016. The victim has stated in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. (Ext.Ka.2) that on 07.10.2016, her maternal uncle (mausha), appellant-accused, Rinku @ Prempal took her from her home on a 4 wheeler on the pretext that her mother is standing nearby and she has phoned and asked him to bring her. Accused took her to the Bulandshahr Bus Station and from there to Ghaziabad Bus Station and then again from there to Railway Station, Ghaziabad and from there to Railway Station, Haridwar where they reached at 6 p.m. and from there, he took her to a rented room where he committed rape on her for 2-3 times. On her request, after 4 days, he took her to Railway Station, Ghaziabad and from there to Jahangirabad where he left her there. A woman constable held the hands of the victim. Seeing her, the appellant-accused fled from the spot. From there, she was brought to the police station concerned.
9. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ext.Ka.3) and arrested the appellant-accused on 19.10.2016. He then recorded the statements of the witnesses and after conclusion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet (Ext.Ka.4) u/s 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012 against accused, Rinku @ Prempal.
10. On 27.06.2017, the trial court framed charge u/s 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012. The accused denied the charge and claimed trial.
(iii) by means of criminal intimidation or otherwise by inducing any woman to go to any place with intent that she maybe, or knowing that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse; it is immaterial whether the woman kidnapped is a married woman or not.
18. The Apex Court has held in Gabbu Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2006 SC 246 that unless the prosecution proves that the abduction is for the purposes mentioned in Section 366 I.P.C., 1860, the Court cannot hold the accused guilty and punish him u/s 366 I.P.C., 1860. If the criminal was 18 years old or over, she could only be abducted and not kidnapped but if she was not 18 years, she could be kidnapped as well as abducted if the taking was by force or enticing was by deceitful means.