DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.03.1996 passed by the IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Katni in S.T.No.531/93 convicting to each of them under section 363 and 366 of the IPC with a direction to undergo RI 2 years with fine of Rs.200/-in the earlier section while RI 3 years with fine of Rs.200/- in the later. In default of depositing the fine amount on each of the count further RI 1 month has been awarded.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on dated 11.5.93 at about 7 O' Clock in the morning, Ku Mamta Pathak the minor girl was kidnapped by the appellants from the custody of her natural guardian, the parents residing at some quarter at Katni. Such kidnapping was carried-out by the appellants by misguiding her with intention to get marry with her. Subsequent to kidnapping, the prosecutrix was taken to some different places and lastly she was kept by the appellants with them in some Dharamshala at Hanumana, district Rewa. During such stay at Hanumana, the police came to such Dharamshala and interrogated the prosecutrix in which she stated that the appellants by misguiding brought her from Katni with intention to get marry with appellant No.1 Dipak, on which, the prosecutrix and the appellants were brought to police station Hanumana by such police officials where after lodging the FIR as Crime No0/93, such diary was sent to the Police G.R.P.F, Katni, on which a Crime No.421/93 (Ex.P/11) was registered against the appellants on dated 17.5.93 for the offence of section 363 and 366 of the IPC. As per averment of it, the father of the prosecutrix being posted at Katni she is residing with him at Katni. THE appellant No.1 Dipak is having the intimacy with her and, in such premises, he is ready to marry with her but her father has settled her marriage with some other person at Allahabad. On asking the appellant No.1 Dipak in this regard then he accompanied with Baiznath Kahar, misguided and asked her to come at Balmandir Katni, where they would remain present. Pursuant to it, she went to the aforesaid place where Baiznath was present and after some time, appellant No.1 Dipak also came there by some auto-rickshaw and thereafter with the same auto- rickshaw she accompanied with them went to the railway station and thereafter they went to Maihar from where they proceeded to Rewa and from that place, they went to the house of sister of Baiznath at village Hinoti where they stayed for two days. THEreafter they went to village Jurhat on 14.5.93 from where they came to Hanumana. In Hanumana when they were in the Dharamshala, at the same time, police came there and after interrogation brought her to the police station. In such report the age of the prosecutrix was stated to be 17 years by showing her birth in the year 1976. Subsequent to registration of the offence, her father was informed in this regard and her custody was given to her father. In further investigation, the appellants were arrested, interrogatory statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation, both the appellants were charge sheeted for the aforesaid offence. After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of the charge sheet, the charge of section 363 and 366 of the IPC was framed against the appellants. THEy abjured the guilt, on which, the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, after holding guilty to the appellants for the aforesaid offence each of them were punished with the above mentioned punishment, on which, they have come to this court with this appeal.

(3.) HAVING heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced by the counsel present, I have carefully gone through the record of the trial court so also the impugned judgment. After perusing the evidence led by the prosecution and the findings of there impugned judgment, I have not found any perversity or infirmity in appreciation of the evidence by the trial court either in holding the age of the prosecutrix between 17 to 18 years or holding guilty to the appellants for the alleged offence. In such premises, I have not found any scope for interference in the present matter for extending the acquittal to the appellants, therefore, the findings of the impugned judgment holding aforesaid conviction against the appellants are hereby affirmed.