PREM CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dt. 2-4-1976 accused Prem Chand and Hari Singh both residents of Nai Basti, Modi Nagar, U. P. were charged to stand trial for the commission of offence under Ss. 363/366 of Penal Code on the allegation that on 15-1-1975 at about its a.m. at Gali No. 11, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi they in furtherance of their common intention kidnapped Kumari Nirmala, a minor girl, then under the age of 18 years, from her lawful guardians, by means of criminal intimidation that she would be killed and for with the intention that she may be compelled to marry accused Prem Chand against her will.

(2.) This charge is the result of the prosecution case that accused, Prem Chand and his brother, Ram Pal along with his wife, Bimla lived together for some time as a tenant in a part of house No. 48/3, Gali No. 11, Nai Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi. This house belongs to Manohar Lal. During their stay Bimla, wife of Ram Pal used to tell prosecutrix, Nirmala that her father had 7 daughters besides two sons and would not be in a position to marry her in a suitable family. She insisted that the prosecutrix should marry the accused, Prem Chand. With that end in view she managed to bring the prosecutrix from her house for a cinema show. After seeing the picture they compelled the prosecutrix for a photograph with the accused Prem. After some time the accused along with Bimla vacated the house and started living elsewhere. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14-1-1975 the accused, Prem sent a message to the prosecutrix that she should meet him during the night time in the factory where he was employed. Accordingly on 15-1-1975 at about 4 a.m. when Manohar Lal and Lal Ram, the father and the brother of the prosecutrix were not present at their house, Nirmala left her father's house along with Rs. 11,000/- which Manohar Lal had kept in the Parchhatti of the house. The prosecutrix came to the bus stand where she met Bimla, wife of Ram Pal. From there the prosecutrix was taken to Modi Nagar. With the help of Hari Singh the prosecutrix was forced to accompany them to village Mandwar. On learning about the disappearance of Nirmala her father, Manohar Lal suspected that she would have been taken by accused, Prem He along with his other relatives went to the factory where accused, Prem was employed but could not find his daughter there. He enquired from Prem about the whereabouts of his daughter but could not get a satisfactory reply. On the next day he lodged a report with the police. S.I. Kulwant Rai Verma was entrusted with the investigation of the case, who arrested Prem and recovered the girl from the house of one Smt. Raj Kumari. The Investigating Officer, however, could not recover the amount of Rs. 11,000/- alleged to have been taken by the prosecutrix along with her. S.I. Kulwant Rai Verma got the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under S.164 of the Cr.P.C. As Bimla declined to get herself medically examined, she was not medically examined and after completing the investigation filed the challan on the basis of which the accused were charged.

(3.) In support of their case the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including prosecutrix, her mother, her father and the grandfather. They also succeeded in placing the requisite record for proving the birth of the prosecutrix from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The remaining witnesses are of formal nature. Both the accused in their statement under S.313 of the Cr.P.C. denied the allegations. According to them the parents of the prosecutrix in fact wanted to marry her to Prem, to which they did not agree and had to vacate their house. They also denied having taken the prosecutrix from her house or confining her in another house for the purpose of getting her married to the accused.