Tinku vs State Of Uttarakhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 838 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Tinku vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 May, 2024

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

     HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

                    Criminal Appal No. 321 of 2011

Tinku                                                      ........Appellant
                                  Versus

State of Uttarakhand                                     .....Respondent

Present:-
       Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Pavan Kumar
       Nath, learned counsel for the appellant.
       Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy Advocate General with Mr. S.C. Dumka,
       learned AGA and Mr. J.P. Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.
       Ms. Garima Thapa, learned counsel for the respondent-victim.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal is listed on Compounding Application No.1591 of 2024 duly supported with the affidavit of applicant and victim.

2. The appellant was convicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh under Section 363 and 366-A of IPC. Under Section 363 of IPC appellant was convicted and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-; under Section 366-A IPC appellant was convicted and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,000/- was imposed on him in Sessions Trial No.177 of 2010.

3. Applicant and respondent-prosecutrix (victim) are present in the Court and they are duly identified by their respective counsel.

4. According to the case of the prosecution, the first information report was lodged on 20.12.20210 by the informant Genda Ram at P.S. Rishikesh, Dehradun drafted by one Smt. Sunita Mishra. In the said complaint, it has been stated that on 19.12.2009 at about 05:00 p.m., appellant-Tinku son of Veer Singh enticed away his minor daughter, aged about 16 years from his house. It is alleged that in the said incident on enticing brother-in-law of appellant Vinod Jatav son of Jaswant Singh and his sister Jaswanti were also involved. The

investigation ensued and after filing of the charge sheet trial was faced by all the accused persons, named in the first information report. However, the co-accused Vinod Kumar Jatav and Jaswanti were acquitted by the learned trial court in Sessions Trial No.165 of 2010 State vs. Vinod Kumar Jatav and Another, connected with Sessions Trial No.177 of 2010 State vs. Tinku, which was against appellant- Tinku. In the trial itself, the defence has been taken by the appellant that he married with victim and they are living as husband and wife; since she was minor at the time of commission of offence, the conviction was made and he was sentenced, as stated above.

5. The appellant challenged the said order passed by learned trial court in the present appeal in the year 2011 and the appeal is pending since then, however the appellant was released on bail during the pendency of this criminal appeal.

6. Now the compounding application has been moved by the appellant as well as by the victim/prosecutrix supported by the affidavit filed by both of them. In the said application, it has been contended that both of them are living peacefully as husband and wife since the date of their disappearance from the house and during this period, they have begotten five children.

7. The prosecutrix is present before this court along with her husband; now she is aged about 32 years of age and her husband Tinku-appellant is aged about 34 years. On being inquired by this Court it is submitted by the appellant that he works as carpenter and since he loves the prosecutrix, they ran away from the house and stayed as husband and wife from the date they flew from house; they state that now they are living peacefully and during this period they have begotten five children; their elder daughter is 14 years of age. The respondent-prosecutrix submits that now she does not want to proceed with the present proceedings.

8. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the statement given by the appellant as well as by the prosecutrix coupled with the fact that they are leading a peaceful married life and have children to maintain, this Court is of the opinion that the present prosecution should come to an end on the basis of compromise. In this view of the matter, compounding application deserved to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the compounding application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 09.12.2011 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rishikesh by which the appellant was convicted is hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges of Section 363, and 366-A of I.P.C. on the basis of the compromise. He is on bail. He need not to surrender. Record of the case be consigned to the court below.

10. Criminal Appeal is disposed of in terms of aforesaid compromise.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.05.2024 Arti