Jitender Kumar vs State of Haryana

Sabina, J.—The Appellant was convicted for an offence u/s 363 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC"-for short) vide judgment dated 11.1.2000 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul. Vide order dated 13.1.2000, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years with a fine of Rs. 500/-. Hence, the present appeal.

Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para Nos. 2 to 4 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:

On 10.9.1998 complainant Dharampal, (PW3) lodged a written complaint Ex.PC in the police station, Ateli alleging therein that he was a resident of village Ganiyar. He was working as Class IV employee in Delhi Municipal Corporation. His family consisting of his wife, old parents, two sons and two daughters including the prosecutrix Suman Bala (PW-2) were residing at his house in village Ganiyar.

On the intervening night of 9/10th of September, 1998 at about 12.00 mid night accused Jitender enticed away his daughter Suman Bala with malafide intention. He caught prosecutrix Suman Bala by her arm and took her along. The complainant''s mother Bulli (PW-4), who was sleeping near the prosecutrix on the roof top, chased them but could not catch them. She then raised an alarm on hearing which the neighbourer Bahadur son of Chander, complainant''s wife Prem and other neighbourers chased the accused and the prosecutrix. On account of darkness and the crop of bajra standing in the fields the accused and the prosecutrix could not be traced.

Having come to know about the above kidnapping of his daughter the complainant went to the police station and lodged the above written complaint with ASI Jaipal Singh (PW-6). On the basis of this Criminal Appeal No. 64-SB of 2000 3 complaint formal FIR Ex.PC/1 was recorded as per the endorsement Ex.PC/2 made by the above ASI.

During the course of arguments, learned senior counsel for the Appellant has not challenged the conviction of the Appellant u/s 363 IPC but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the Appellant be reduced to already undergone by him. The fine has already been deposited by the Appellant. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the prosecutrix as well as the Appellant have got married. In fact, the Appellant and prosecutrix had run away together . The Appellant is the only bread earner of the family.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the Appellant to already undergone by him. Fine is stated to have already been deposited by the Appellant.

Accordingly, conviction of the Appellant u/s 363 IPC is maintained. However, the sentence qua imprisonment of the Appellant is reduced to already undergone by him.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.