BHUPENDER PARKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted of offences under Sees. 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code (for short 'Indian Penal Code'), by an Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 31st July, 1982. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years on each count but both these sentences have been made to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved he has come up in this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that at the relevant time viz. April, 1980, Harnam Singh, father of the prosecutrix Miss Mohina, was living on the ground floor of house No. 113, Street No. 7, Krishan Nagar (Safdarjang Enclave), as a tenant of Bhagwan Dass, father of the appellant. The landlord himself was residing in a portion of the first floor. One more tenant by the name of Gopal (co-accused of the appellant) was also occupying one room on the first floor of the house as a tenant. The prosecutrix-Mohina was then studying in 7th class in Govt. Senior Secondary School (Girls), Netaji Nagar and was about 12 years old. On the morning of 21st April, 1980, Mohina went to her school along with her elder sister who too was studying in the same school as usual, She had to appear in the annual examination for the 7th class. At about 10 a.m. she came out after finishing her paper. She found both the appellant and Gopal standing outside the gate of the school. They accosted her and told her that her father had met with an accident and she should accompany them to see him. All of them then walked up to Shastri Market and from there an auto-rickshaw was hired by the accused and they took her to Inter-State Bus Terminal at Kashmere Gate. From there they took her to Ghaziabad in a bus. On that very night they boarded a train bound for Howrah. They threatened her not to talk to anybody on the way. On reaching Howrah they took her to the house of Gopal's sister at Kharda. The sister of Gopal enquired who she (i.e. prosecutrix) was. However, the accused told her that she was sister-in-law of the appellant and that they had brought her for site-seeing. The accused did not allow her to talk with Gopal's sister. On that very evening Gopal took her to the house of his brother. The appellant too accompanied them. Gopal's brother and his wife too enquired who she (i.e. prosecutrix) was and they replied that she was the appellant's brother's wife's sister, However, when both the accused were away she told bhabhi of Gopal that they had brought her there on the false pretext of her daddy meeting with an accident. When the brother of Gopal returned home he gave money to the accused telling them to leave the prosecutix at the place from where they had brought her Thereupon the accused persons left the house of Gopal's brother but instead of bringing her back to Delhi she was taken to a room behind Jesus and Mary School at Barrack Pore. They hired that room and kept her there for nearly four months. Both of them ravished the prosecutrix and they used to shut her in the house and close the door from outside whenever they went out. One day the appellant and Gopal fell out with each other and the appellant left that place. Thereafter, only Gopal kept the prosecutrix in the said room and used to rape her.

(3.) Harnam Singh, father of the prosecutrix searched for her on 21st April, 1980 at various places including the house of their relatives. But unable to find her, he went to the Police Station at about 7 p.m. to lodge a report that she was missing. However, he was advised by the police to continue the search. Eventually at about 12 Noon on 22nd April, 1980 he lodged report at Police Station Vinay Nagar to the effect that his daughter Mohina aged about 12 years had been kidnapped by someone when she had gone to the school for examination on 21st April, 1980. However, Mohina could not be traced even thereafter for a long time.