KUNWAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.09.1989 by which all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years and fine for the offence punishable under Section 366 I.P.C. Appellant Ayodhya Singh has further been sentenced to undergo seven years R.I. for the offence punishable under section 376 I.P.C.

(2.) AS per prosecution case, on 18.09.1987, at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant had gone to his agricultural field and his daughter, aged about 14 years was all alone at the home, then at about 11.00 a.m., the appellants came to the house of the complainant and enticed away the daughter of the complainant which was seen by Brij Kishor Shukla, son of Ramdev, Shivnandan, son of Kailashi and other persons. The complainant searched his daughter, but she was not traceable. Therefore, the First Information Report was lodged on 20.09.1987 and a case under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. was registered against the appellants. After the recovery of the prosecutrix, Section 376 I.P.C. was added and after the investigation, the charge -sheet was filed against the appellants, upon which the cognizance was taken. After committal of the case to the court of session, the appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) IN the trial, the prosecution had examined Prithvi Pal Singh as P.W -1, Brij Kishore Shukla as P.W. -2, the prosecutrix as P.W -3, Dr. Nirmala Suri as P.W -4, Head Moharrir Rajendra Singh as P.W -5, S.I. Raj Bir Singh as P.W -6. After recording the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants were afforded opportunity to adduce defence evidence, but no defence evidence was adduced and they stated that they have been falsely implicated.