BHAJAN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Bhajan Lal against his conviction under Section 341, Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge of Bareilly. The trial was with the aid of a jury which returned a unanimous verdict of guilty against the appellant.

(2.) The prosecution story was briefly this. One Sm. Majidan was the daughter of one Chhotey of village Sheopuri. She was married sometime in 1947 with Nanhe of village Kurtara. Nazir, who was also an accused in the Court below, is the brother of Nanhe. Nanhe died soon after the marriage and Nazir wanted to marry Sm. Majidan. As, however, he had already a wife, Sm. Majidan and her father were not agreeable to this proposal. This was, therefore, a cause of annoyance to Nazir. On 21-1-1949, the Nikah of Sm. Majidan was performed with one Munshi of village Titauli at village Sheopari. The aforesaid Nazir was present at this nikah and had tried that he should be the bridegroom, but was unsuccessful and returned to his village Kurtara. Sm. Majidan and her new husband, Munshi, and other members of the marriage party left for Titauli on the afternoon of 21-1-1949. They halted for the night at Bareilly junction railway station. In the morning they boarded the lorry which was going to Shahi with a view to get down in village Agras from where village Titauli is only one mile away. The road passes by village Kurtara. When the lorry was on the road near village Kurtara, the appellant, who is Mukhia of that village, stopped the lorry by raising his hand. As soon as the lorry stopped about fifty or sixty persons armed with lathis appeared on the scene and surrounded it. The appellant then ordered these persons to get into the lorry and pull out Sm. Majidan. Thereupon, Nazir and another Munshi got into the lorry and forcibly took Sm. Majidan from there. Munshi, the husband of Sm. Majidan and his two relations, Nazir and Roshan were also brought out of the lorry and given a beating. Thereafter, Sm. Majidan was taken away by Bhajan Lal, Nazir and six other persons to village Kurtara. There Bhajan Lal tried to compel Sm. Majidan to marry Nazir, but she refused. Nazir then took Sm. Majidan to his house and tried to force her to marry him, but she was adamant. He, however, removed certain ornaments which Mt. Majidan was wearing. In the meantime, Munshi, the husband, had proceeded to thana Shahi. and made a report there. The Sub-Inspector was not in the thana. He had come to Bareilly and was returning to Shahi when he got information on the way that a woman had been taken out forcibly from a lorry and taken away to Kurtara. The Sub-Inspector then went straight to Kurtara and met the appellant Bhajan Lal. There, it seems that on the intervention of the Sub-Inspector, Bhajan Lal got Nazir to produce Sm. Majidan who was taken in charge by the Sub-Inspector. On 23-1-1949, the Sub-Inspector again went to the village and this time ornaments which had been taken away by Nazir were handed over to him.

(3.) Bight persons including Bhajan Lal, appellant, and Nazir were prosecuted in connection with this incident. Seven of them including Nazir were charged under Section 366, Penal Code while Bhajan Lal was charged under Section 366 read with Section 109 of the same Code. Nazir was further charged under Section 379 of that Code for removing ornaments from the person of Sm. Majidan. The jury found the appellant, Nazir and the other six persons guilty under Section 341, Penal Code. They also found Nazir guilty under Section 379.