RAGHUNATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Raghunath Singh was tried with six others for offences under sections 366 /368 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge of Tikamgarh and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence of rape and for five years for the other offence. THE sentences were to run concurrently. On appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, his conviction and sentence for rape were set aside but his conviction under section 366 /368, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of five years, rigorous imprisonment passed on him were maintained. He now appeals by special leave of this Court.

(2.) One Mst. Parvati, daughter of Sukku was the prosecutrix in the case. Her age has been found by the High Court to be not below 16 years and not above 18 years. The prosecution case is as follows: On the night between the 3rd and 4th September, 1963, Mst. Parvati was returning at about midnight after answering a call of nature when Bharosa and Acchelal (co-accused of the present appellant) accosted her and told her that Mst. Ladkunvar, the mistress of appellant Raghunath Singh, had sent for her. Mst. Parvati at first did not wish to go but on being assured that she would be allowed to return within a short time, went with them. When she reached the house she met Raghunath Singh, who was waiting for her and took her forcibly, at the point of a gun, to an upper storey in a portion of his house known as the Chakki Ghar. There Bhe was made to take liquor against her will and thereafter was raped by Raghunath Singh. She was kept concealed in the house till the night intervening the 5th and 6th September, 1966 and then was taken to Palera by Bharosa and Acchelal. She then passed successively into the possession of the other accused in the case who in their turn, also detained her and raped her. As those persons have not appealed we are not concerned with what happened to Mst. Parvati after she left Raghunath Singh's house. At that place she was not allowed to go out of the house and even when she went out to answer the call of nature, Raghunath Singh used to mount guard so that she should not run away.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the story of Mst. Parvati, as summarised above. The High Court differed on the question of rape and held that Mst. Parvati had consented. As a result Raghunath Singh was acquitted of that offence. The High Court, however, upheld the conviction under section 366 /368 holding that Mst. Parvati had been concealed or confined by Raghunath Singh knowing that she had been kidnapped or abducted. In this appeal Mr. Sanghi contends that there is no evidence to establish that Mst. Parvati was either kidnapped or abducted and further that it is not established that Raghunath Singh concealed or confined her knowing that she had been kidnapped or abducted.