SMT. SHEELA AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 17.11.2004 and the order on sentence dated 18.11.2004 by which the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 363/366/34 IPC. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment is as under:

(2.) Counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of the trial court is based on surmises and conjectures. The trial court has fallen in grave error by placing reliance on the testimony of PW-1, the prosecutrix. It is contended that the testimony of the prosecutrix is unreliable, there are material contradictions in her evidence and the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. It is contended that there is no other evidence to corroborate the testimony of PW-1. It is further contended that the testimony of the prosecutrix is unbelievable and improbable for the reason that in her testimony she has stated that at the time she was confined in a room food was being provided by a lady, who was residing at the first floor of the room where she was confined, but in all the months of her confinement she neither created any hue and cry nor did she try to escape and on the contrary she has stated that she managed to escape with the help of one boy by the name of Udai, and the said boy has not been cited as witness or produced for recording of his testimony.

(3.) It is further submitted by counsel for the appellants that as per the prosecutrix, she was taken from her house in a three wheeler scooter as stated by her in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., whereas in the testimony before the Court she has stated that she was taken by bus. Another contradiction which has been pointed out is that she has given different dates as to when she was kidnapped and the manner in which she was removed. It is pointed out that in the statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. she has not mentioned that she was taken by Sheela on the pretext of celebrating the birthday of her daughter, whereas this improvement has been made in the statement before the Court. It is also the case of the appellant that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and she had gone with accused, Jatish, who has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender, out of her own pleasure and sweet will, without any coercion and any help from the appellants and the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case, being the sister and brother-in-law of Jatish.