1. By way of present Appeal filed under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State of Gujarat has prayed for enhancement of the sentence which has been awarded by the judgment and order dated 21.09.2000 by the learned Special & Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Special Case No.2 of 2000 by which the respondentsaccused were convicted and sentenced for R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,500/ each, and in default R.I. for 15 days, for the offence under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts arising from the case are as under:
2.1 That one Ravjibhai Shivabhai Vankar disclosed before the Borsad Police Station on 18.11.1999 that his three children aged between 6 to 15 years as well as daughter of his neighbour aged about 10 years were missing since 17.11.1999. The police authority entered the information as Janvajogh Entry. In the said Janvajogh Entry, the complainant disclosed that he was not aware about involvement of any known person and he had no doubts against anybody. The children who were missing since 17.11.1999 were found from one Village Raipura of Vadodara (Rural) Police Station along with the respondents – accused persons on 22.11.1999.
2.2 The complainant therefore reached at the Vadodara (Rural) Police Station and found that the accused persons, who are husband and wife, had abducted them and kept the children with them for about 6 days. Thereafter Ravjibhai Shivabhai Vankar lodged a complaint on 22.11.1999 with Borsad Police Station against the present respondents accused persons. The police officer started investigation, and after having found sufficient material against the accused persons, filed a chargesheet in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Borsad, who in turn committed the case in the Court of Sessions Judge at Nadiad.
2.3 The charge was framed against the accused persons under the provisions of Section 363A read with Section 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10)(15) under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocities Act”). After examining the depositions on record and perusing the documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused persons from the charges under Section 363A of IPC as well as under the provisions of Section 3(1)(10)(15) of the Atrocities Act. However, the accused were convicted for two years under Section 363 read with Section 114 of IPC. Hence this Appeal, by State of Gujarat for enhancement of the sentence which has been awarded by the trial court.
3. Heard learned APP Mr.Neeraj Soni for the appellant. Though the respondents are served with the notice of the Appeal, they have chosen not to remain present personally or through advocate. However, with the help of learned APP, I have examined the Record & Proceedings and the depositions of the witnesses as well as the documentary evidence proved by the prosecution.
4. The appeal is filed for enhancement of the sentence which has been awarded by the trial court under the provisions of Section 363 of IPC. The accused have not challenged the conviction and sentence passed by Sessions Court and, therefore, the only question is with regard to adequacy of the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.
5. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses by which the prosecution was successful in bringing the case of kidnapping of four children, three of the complainant and one of his neighbour. The charge which was framed under the provisions of the Atrocities Act was not proved by the prosecution and, therefore, the accused were acquitted from the same and there is no challenge to the said finding.
Similarly, the charge which was framed under Section 363A is concerned, the prosecution was not successful in establishing that the children were kidnapped for the purpose of begging. Though the respondents – accused are acquitted from the charge under Section 363A, no appeal is preferred against the acquittal.
6. I have gone through the deposition of Kankuben Ravjibhai, P.W. 4 Exh.22, who was kidnapped by the accused. She is aged about 12 years. As per her deposition, the accused persons had taken all the children to different places. It is alleged in the deposition that her hands were tied with a rope. The same is proved through the deposition of Dr.Manubhai Kisabhai, P.W.6 Exh.24. He has stated that some abrasions were found on both the legs. Except this injury, he found no injuries on the person of the two children.
7. I have considered the conduct of the accused persons with the children when they were with them. I do not find that the children were kidnapped and thereafter illtreated in such a manner which would lead to enhance the sentence. In my opinion, the sentence imposed by the trial court is sufficient and no interference is called for. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 21.09.2000 rendered by the learned Special & Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Special Case No.2 of 2000 is confirmed.
( A.J. DESAI, J. ) syed/