RAM DAS CHHEDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Ram Das against his conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Ram Das was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 363. 366 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. He was however acquitted of these offences by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gonda but was convicted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and to a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default six months rigorous imprisonment. On appeal the conviction was maintained and the sentence was reduced to one year but the sentence of fine was maintained. Ram Das has therefore come in revision before this Court,

(2.) IN short the prosecution case is that Smt. Sunderpata, who was a minor married girl, was abducted by Ram Das along with Babadin. who has submitted to the sentence and another accused who was acquitted, from the house of : her father Ram Dhiraj from village tyfunderawa Kalan, Police Station ICatwali, district Gonda between 6 and 6. 30 p. m. by deceitful Inducement to the effect that she was unhappy and that another husband has been found for her who would give her good clothes and ornaments and maintain her well. The applicant secured the ornaments, which Smt. Sunderpata was wearing on her person in the way by dishonest inducement to the effect that it would not be safe for her to be putting on ornaments as it was getting dark. Upon this inducement the woman handed over the ornaments to Ram Das which were placed by him in a bag which he carried. She was carried by the applicant to railway station Subhagpur. When absence of the woman was discovered at her house her brother Ram Dayal (P. W. 1), her uncle Jangali Nath (P. W. 2) and Suraj Nath (P. W. 4) went out in search other. On reaching the railway station they found Smt. Sunderpata sitting along with the applicant on a bench at the platform. On seeing them the applicant fled along with the ornaments which were contained in his Jhola. After recovery Smt. Sundarpata was brought by these witnesses home the same night and on 17-9-1967 she lodged the first report at 1. 35 p. m. at police station Kotwail, Gonda. The applicant pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed to have been implicated falsely on account of enmity.

(3.) THE first submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the trial court having acquitted Ram Das of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code on the finding that Smt. Sunderpata was at the time of the incident over 18 years of age and having further found that she was a consenting party when she left the house of her father the applicant's conviction for cheating could not be sustained. In this connection it was submitted that on the question of the applicant having secured ornaments from Smt. Sunderpata by dishonest inducement there was her solitary statement without any corroboration. To my mind the acquittal of Ram Das of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code did not affect the finding of guilt on the charge of cheating because even if the finding that she was a major at the time of the incident and was a consenting party when she left the house of her father were accepted to be correct that did not affect the main question involved in a charge under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The main ingredient of the offence of cheating is dishonestly inducing the person deceived to deliver any property to any person. The main question therefore is whether there was such evidence in the case on the basis of which one could reasonably hold that the applicant had obtained delivery of the ornaments from Smt. Sunderpata by dishonest inducement.-As to this no doubt the direct evidence consists only of the evidence of Smt. Sunderpata but in the very nature of things no other witness could be produced for the prosecution because no independent witness was present at the time. The question arises whether this statement of Smt. Sunderpata has received such corroboration as induces one to believe her statement. To my mind such evidence was found in the statements of Ram Dayal (P. W. 1) and Suraj Nath (P. W. 4) brother and real uncle respectively of Smt. Sunderpata. Ram Dayal stated in cross-examination that immediately on her recovery at the railway platform Smt. Sunderpata had told him that she had handed over her ornaments to Ram Das who had placed them inside his Jhola and that he had run away with the ornaments. The witness further stated that he had noticed Ram Das carrying a Jhola in his hand at the time when he was fleeing from the rail-way platform. To the same effect was the statement of Suraj Nath (P. W. 4) who stated that when he made enquiry from Smt. Sunderpata after her recovery she told him that Ram Das had run away with her ornaments. This statement of Smt. Sunderpata immediately after the occurrence was admissible as res gestae under Section 6 of the Evidence Act and to my mind provided the necessary corroboration so as to lend assurance about the trustworthiness of Smt. Sunderpata's testimony on the question of exercise of dishonest inducement by Ram Das.