Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This order will dispose of CRA-S-10555-2018, CRA-D- 244-2019, CRA-D-36-2019 and CRA-S-5504-2018 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. These appeals have been directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.11.2018 and order of sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonepat.

2. Brief facts as culled out from the paper-books are that appellants/accused namely Anish, Rinku @ Vinay, Rajesh and Rohit @ Nawab were sent to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Sections 364-A, 343, 376-D, 376, 379-A, 411, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered vide FIR No.64 dated 20.02.2017 by the Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar Sonepat. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant has three 2 of 14 CRA-S-10555-2018, CRA-D-244-2019, daughters and one son. His third daughter left the house in March, 2016 and a case was registered in Police Station Sadar Sonepat against accused/appellant Anish that he had called and taken away complainant's daughter with him. His daughter was recovered on 31.12.2016 but said accused was not arrested. As per complainant, now said Anish had taken away his younger daughter i.e. prosecutrix on 18.02.2017 and he was trying to trace out his daughter. However, accused Anish had made call from his mobile No.8398038308 on his mobile No.9255284263 demanding ransom of Rs.3 lakhs for releasing his daughter. Accordingly, FIR was registered, the accused were arrested and they were charge-sheeted. The prosecution has examined witnesses PW-1 to PW-21 and the accused persons examined their defence witnesses.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the paper-book. PW-17 the complainant/father of the prosecutrix deposed that on 18.02.2017 when they woke up, they found that his daughter i.e. prosecutrix was missing from his house. He deposed that on 20.02.2017 he moved complaint Ex.PW-17/A against accused Anish to the police regarding missing of his daughter. Further he deposed that accused Anish had extended threat to him prior to missing of prosecutrix. He demanded Rs.3 lakhs as ransom money from him on telephone by saying that he had kidnapped his daughter. PW-17 also deposed that on 23.02.2017 his daughter was recovered from the custody of accused Anish and Rinku and at that time the proxecutrix was kept confined by the accused persons in H.No.3611, Housing Board Sector-15, Sonepat and after getting recording statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and her medical examination, the police handed over the custody of prosecutrix to the complainant. PW-17 further deposed that the prosecutrix told them that on the intervening night of 17-18.02.2017 accused Rohit committed rape with her when she came down at the 6 of 14 CRA-S-10555-2018, CRA-D-244-2019, ground floor of his house for urination and after that accused Anish and Rinku kidnapped her from his house.

13. Furthermore, considering the aforesaid guiding principles and the mitigating and peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that imprisonment for remainder of natural life awarded to appellants Anish and Rinku @ Vinay @ Billu under Sections 376-D, 120-B of the IPC is modified to the extent that the term of RI on appellants Anish and Rinku @ Vinay @ Billu shall be for life imprisonment. Accordingly, the order of sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Sonepat is modified to the aforesaid extent. The conviction and sentence awarded to Anish and Rinku @ Vinay @ Billu, both under Sections 364-A r/w Section 120-B & 34, 343 r/w 11 of 14 CRA-S-10555-2018, CRA-D-244-2019, 120-B & 34 , 379-A r/w 120-B & 34, 506 and 411 of the IPC and Rajesh under Section 411 of the IPC is not interfered with.