SUKHNA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23.9.1996 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T.No.260/1991, whereby each of the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Jail Sentence Sentence of Fine Default Sentence 366 of IPC R.I. for 2 years. Rs.500/- R.I. for 3 months. 376 of IPC R.I. for 31/2 years. Rs.500/- R.I. for 3 months.

(2.) The prosecution's story, in short, is that, the complainant Birju (P.W.9) had submitted a written report on 18.10.1990 at out post Hirapur of Police Station Bakaswaha, District ChHattarpur that on 20.9.1990, he went to Meddeora bus stand to see off his wife the prosecutrix (P.W.5) and daughter Ram Devi. The appellant No.1 Sukhana who was Patwari in Sadhpur area was also going in the same bus and therefore, on the request of the complainant Birju, the appellant Sukhna accepted the liability of the prosecutrix that her comfort would be taken care of. Thereafter, on 5.10.1990 the complainant himself visited Katangi but, his in-laws informed that neither the prosecutrix, nor her child reached their house and thereafter, the complainant tried to search his wife and ultimately, submitted a report Ex.P/6 dated 18.10.1990. After sometime, the complainant received an information from his wife that she was abducted and after her escape, she was with his maternal uncle Hallu (P.W.3), so the complainant went to the house of Hallu and brought his wife back to his house at village Agar. Thereafter, the prosecutrix had lodged a written complaint Ex.P/5 to the SHO, Police Station Bakaswaha that she was abducted by the appellant No.1 Sukhna and other accused persons namely Shankar and Karan. They kept her in a house of Hari Thakur and

(3.) The appellants abjured their guilt. They took a specific plea that the complainant Birju requested the accused Shankar and Karan to search his wife but, they could not give any help to the complainant, therefore, they were also implicated with the main accused Sukhna. Similarly, the appellant Sukhna took a specific plea that on the particular day, he reported at the office of Assistant Officer, Land Records at Damoh and therefore, allegations