MANPYARE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment and findings dated 21-11-89 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in the Sessions Trial No. 48/87 whereby the appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Ss. 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count and in default, to further undergo six months R.I. on each count. However, accused Shiv Prasad was not found guilty on any count, therefore, acquitted of said charges.

(2.) Briefly narrated the facts of the prosecution case are that prosecutrix Geeta Bai (PW. 4) is daughter of Sunderlal (PW. 7). Being a minor she was in lawful gaurdianship of her parents on the date of offence. Accused Manpyare was living in a house opposite the house of Sunderlal (PW. 7), at Barigarh. Accused Ramprasad brother-in-law of accused Manpyare was also staying there for his study. Another student accused Shiv Prasad was also living in the same locality in the house of Bhawanideen. On 24-4-86, the date of incident, prosecutrix Geetabai went to the Chaturbhuj Baba well for fetching water. From that well accused Ramprasad and Shivprasad also used to take water. In the course of frequent visits to the well accused Ramprasad developed friendship with Geeta and started exchanging letters. Accused Ramprasad used to send letters through accused Manpyare or Shivprasad. He used to invite Geeta to his house by such letters and perform sexual intercourse with her. On 24-4-86, accused Ramprasad sent a letter to Geeta through the younger son of Manpyare assuring to fix her marriage with accused Shivprasad. On that date itself Shivprasad also wrote a letter to Geeta, promising her to marry and that enticed her to visit the house of accused Ramprasad at 3 O'clock in the night where she also disclosed the fact that her mother had chastened her for any such indulgence. For that reason, accused Ramprasad advised her to go and hide behind a hillock and he promised to look after her. Prosecutrix Geeta did accordingly and on 25-4-86 at about 8.00 O'clock in the morning accused Ramprasad visited her and asked her to stay there itself. Again at about 5 O'clock in the evening accused Ramprasad went to give her water. Thereafter accused Manpayare went there and performed sexual intercourse with her. Accused Ramprasad came in the night and also performed sexual intercourse with her. In the morning accused Ramprasad went away but Manpyare stayed there. In the day time accused Ramprasad brought food for her and went away. Genda Bai (PW/5) mother of the prosecutrix informed her husband Sunderlal (PW/7), a school teacher, through her brother-in-law Shivlal after Geeta did not return home. On 27-4-86, at 15.45 Sunderlal (PW. 7) father of the prosecutrix lodged a report at Police Station Jujharnager which was registered for offences under Ss. 363 and 366, IPC as per Crime No. 21/86 by Police A.S.I. Shri R. N. Mishra (PW/13). Shri Mishra (PW/13) also recorded the statements witnesses Sunderlal and Ramadeen and seized as per Ex. P/12, the letter written by accused Shiv Prasad to Geeta. The police came to the place where she was hiding but could not trace her out. Thereafter, accused Manpyare took Geeta along to Pipri where Geeta stayed in his aunt's house. On 1-5-86, accused Ramprasad also joined and they took her to Chhatarpur Court via Srinagar where they obtained her affidavit and made her sign some papers. In her affidavit she stated her age to be 18 years. Thereafter, she was taken to Mahoba and from there to Karbi. Thus, accused persons roamed around with her and performed sexual intercourse. Manpyare also took Geeta to Naibasti and purchased a new set of cloths for her, where, he came to know that police was coming in search of Geeta, therefore, he left her alone in the forest and fled away. Police Station Incharge A.S. Bhadouria (PW. 11) on 3-5-86 recovered Geeta from the forest near Naibasti of village Jareta after 11 days and took her in custody as per Ex. P/4. As per Ex. P/4(A), Geeta was sent to Chhatarpur Hospital for the medical examination and her medical report is Ex. P/5. To determine the age of prosecutrix Geeta, her limbs were x-rayed and X-plates were prepared as Ex. P/2 and Ex. P/3. Dr. K. L. Bandil (PW. 1) took X-ray and gave the report Ex. P/1. Statement of prosecutrix Geeta bai was recorded and the clothes which she was wearing at the time of her elopment were also seized as per Ex. P/6. On 5-5-86 as per Ex. P/10 Police Station Incharge A.S. Bhadoria (P.W. 11) arrested accused Manpyare, Ramprasad and Shivprasad. On 30-6-86 accused Shivram was taken in custody. Accused persons were medically examined by Dr. Rajendra Prasad Gupta (PW. 12) who submitted his report as Ex. P/11(A), Ex. P/12(A) and Ex. P/13(A). The affidavit sworn by prosecutrix Geeta bai was seized from Ramprasad. The articles of the case were sent to F.S.L. Sagar and a report in that respect is Ex. P/15. After due investigation a challan was laid and charges were drawn up for offences under Ss. 363, 366 and 376, IPC against all the accused which they denied. However, accused Manpyare and Ramprasad admitted that they had got an affidavit sworn by Geeta at Chhatarpur. Accused Manpyare pleaded innocence and false implication due to enmity, being a relative of accused Ramprasad. Accused Ramprasad submitted that the complainant wanted him to enter into a nuptial bond with prosecutrix which he declined, and therefore, he was falsely implicated. Accused Shiv Prasad admitted the factum of being taken in custody and subjected to medical examination. He also pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused Manpyare and Ramprasad also adduced defence evidence of witnesses Shivpal Singh and Sonelal Prajapati, in their favour.

(3.) The learned trial Judge on a close scrutiny of the evidence on record found that the prosecution was not able to prove the charges against accused Shiv Prasad and, therefore, recorded his acquittal. However, accused Manpyare, Ramprasad and Shivram were held guilty and awarded sentences as stated above.