GARIB-ULLA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Garib-Ullah, accused-appellant, against his eviction under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. and sentences of 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 366 I.P.C. and 4 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 376 Indian Penal Code passed by the Court of Shri J.D. Kapoor, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi by his impugned judgment and order of sentence, both dated 19th July, 1983. The prosecution case in brief is that on 7.2.1982 the prosecutrix Dhanwanti Lado aged about 17 years went to the Railway siding of Nabikarim during the day. The Appellant chased her there. He asked the prosecutrix if she was Dhanwanti to which she replied in the affirmative. The appellant then told her that her mother had met with an accident and she has sent for her (the prosecutrix) at the Company Bagh. On hearing that Dhanwanti got nervous. She accompanied the appellant to the Company Bagh. She however did not find her mother there. The appellant showed her a knife and threatened her to accompany him. He took her to the Delhi Main Railway Station. From there the appellant took her to Lucknow by train. The prosecutrix was kept near the Railway Station Lucknow by the appellant for three days. He then took her to Faizabad and from there the appellant brought Dhanwanti with him to Jaunpur at his uncles home. The prosecutrix was kept there for one night. The appellant represented to his uncle and aunt that Dhanwanti was his duly married wife. Dhanwanti also represented the same to them under pressure and threat of the appellant. The appellant committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix against her will and resistance on that night at Jaunpur.

(2.) From Jaunpur the appellant brought the prosecutrix to his parentTs house at the village known as Dhobighat in D.P. He kept her there for 6/7 days and committed sexual intercourse with her on all these days. The appellant had represented to his parents also that Dhanwanti was his wife. The parents of the appellant did not allow Dhanwanti to return from there to her parents home. They did not allow her to come out of their Jhuggi. The matter had in the meantime been reported by the mother of Dhanwanti to the police on 10.2.1982. The police ultimately recovered Dbanwanti from the Jhuggi of the parents of the Appellant at Dhobighat on the morning of 20.2.1982. The version of the accused appellant is given in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. is that the prosecutrix was more to all 18 years of age and had gone with him of her own free will. He further stated that the prosecutrix had come to his house of her own free will and she had accompanied him with her free will. He admitted that the prosecutrix was recovered by the police from the Jhuggi of his parents on 20.2.82 and he was arrested in the case there. The appellant did not lead any evidence in defence.

(3.) The appeal was admitted subject to the objection regarding limitation. I have heard Miss Seem a Mehra, appointed as amicus curiae for the appellant and Mr. P.S. Sharma, learned counsel for the State, and have been taken through the record of the case. As regards the question of limitation of the appeal, the appeal was admittedly filed late by 194 days. No application for condonation of delay has also been filed by the appellant. However, as the appeal was admitted (no doubt subject to the objection of limitation) and from the record of the case which was perused by-me for disposing of the appeal, I find that the impugned judgment is a bad judgment and the conviction of the appellant and sentences as awarded to him are illegal, I take action in the appeal suo motu and treat the appeal as a revision petition. There is no period of limitation for the exercise of Suo Motu Revisional Jurisdiction by this Court. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the State, fairly conceded this entire position.