SAHAB LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants have been convicted by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge of Hardoi by his order dated 29th July 1981 for offences under sections 363 and 366 IPC and sentenced to undergo five years' RI and pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default to undergo a further Rl for six months under section 366 IPC. THEy have not been awarded a separate sentence under section 363 IPC. THE charge under section 376 IPC made against both of them, however, failed and they were acquitted of that charge.

(2.) THE girl who was kidnapped in this case was Kumari Sushila aged about 13 or 14 at the time of occurrence!. Her brother Banshi Lal lodged a report at the police station Bilgram whiich was about eight miles from the village of the complainant. It was alleged therein that his sister Kumari Sushila had gone to throw some rubbish near the Gonda of Ram Swarup shortly before sunset and did not return. He made a search for the girl but she could not be traced and hence the next day i. e. on 20-1-1978 at about 3.30 P. M. he lodged a report naming Sahab Lal appellant as the person who was suspected for kidnapping the girl. It is alleged that the girl returned home on 20-1-1978 and when her brother came back from the police station she was already there. Banshi Lal took his sister to the police station the next day i. e. on 21-1-1978 to inform the Sub-Inspector that she had come back. Investigations were taken up. Sub- lnspector Vinod Kumar Sharma who investigated the case interrogated Banshi Lal, his sister Kumari Sushila and other witnesses. She was sent for medical examination and in due course a charge sheet was submitted against both the appellants.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also for the State and have been taken through the entire evidence on record. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that so far as the FIR is concerned only suspicion was expressed against Saheb Lal but not a word was said against Sant Ram. That was very natural and rather a truthful version given by Banshi Lal with no effort to implicate any body falsely. When the girl came back home the next day after getting an opportunity when the appellants were away and was taken to the police station, she was Interrogated and at that stage the name of Sant Ram came to light. She also mentioned a third person amongst the kidnappers but could not give his name and said that she could only identify him if produced. However, no test identification parade was held and none else was arrested. I do not therefore, find any infirmity in the FIR.