WAHIDUDDIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Which has taken place on 26.6.1975. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these by a common judgment.

(2.) These appeals are directed against the judgment by the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 8.6.1977 and 10.6.1977 respectively. Facts which are necessary to dispose of these appeals are recapitulated in succeeding paragraphs.

(3.) The entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of Pushpa Public Witness-6 According to the prosecution version Public Witness-6 of Ram Bhola went to give lunch box to her husband. Appellant Wahiduddin, his wife and children met her and took her to their house where she was kept for 2-3 days. The appellant Wahiduddin told her that he would take her to his sister's house in Merut and had in fact taken her to Public Witness-2, Rajo, who was living in Kabari Bazar at Meerut. The further case of the prosecution is that Wahiduddin wanted to sell prosecutrix to one Rajo in Meerut. Rajo offered Rs. 1,500.00 whereas Wahiduddin demanded Rs. 2,000.00 When Public Witness 6 heard this conversation, she became apprehensive and rushed to the downstair and she raised alarm that the appellant Wahiduddin was selling her to Rajo. Some people had collected and they apprehended Wahiduddin. In the meantime the police reached there and recorded prosecutrix's statement, i.e., Exhibit Public Witness-2./A. This statement was treated as a First Information Report. Though the prosecution has examined seven witnesses, other than Public Witness-6 but all other are-formal witnesses. The Trial Court on analysis of the prosecution version came. to the finding that Public Witness- 6 was not a woman of virtue and the trial court mentioned that she had voluntarily left the house of her husband Ram Bhola on three different occasions. She had left with Wahiduddin accused on one occasion. This clearly shows that she had known the accused appellant and had voluntarily gone with him to Meerut.