MADHO RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-5-1969 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 2180 of 1966 and confirming the conviction of the appellants for an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. as also the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The first appellant has, in addition, been convicted for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C.

(2.) The sole question that arises for consideration is whether the two courts were justified in convicting the appellants for the above offences almost exclusively on the evidence of the prosecutrix, PW 7. Though originally the charge was of kidnapping, it is seen that the learned Sessions Judge framed an alternative charge under Section 366 I.P.C. on the allegation that the appellants abducted PW 7 with intent that she may be compelled to have illicit intercourse and marry the first appellant against her will. The learned Sessions Judge has held that PW 7 on the material date, namely, August 17, 1964, was over 18 years of age. Along with the appellants, four others were also tried for an offence under section 366 read with section 109, I.P.C. and Section 368 IPC, but three of them were acquitted by the Trial Court and another, Ram Swarup, was acquitted on appeal by the High Court.

(3.) The appellants are brothers, Madho Ram being elder. PW 1 Sham Lal had two daughters. His elder daughter, Shushila, was married to the 2nd appellant, Jagdish, about six or seven years prior to the date of occurrence. The first appellant, Madho Ram was a widower, aged about 42 years, his wife having died about 20 years ago. The second daughter of PW 1 who is the prosecutrix, is Surja, PW 7, who was aged, on the findings of the Courts, about 19 years at the material time. The second appellant was always suggesting to his father-in-law, PW 1, that Surja PW 7, has to be given in marriage to his elder brother, Madho Ram. Neither PW 1 nor PW 7 agreed to this proposal on the ground that there was a large disparity in age. The second appellant, however, threatened that in case PW 7 did not marry his elder brother, she would be compelled by force to marry Madho Ram.