BABULAL HARNARAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants were convicted under Sections 366, 376 and 343, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for 3 years under the first count, R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500 -/, in default to further S.I. for 2 months under the second count and R.I. for 6 months under the third count by Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopurkalan. The suspension of their sentence pending the present appeal was refused by this Court. They are, therefore, undergoing the sentences awarded under the impugned judgment and are in jail. Shri J. P. Gupta, senior counsel has however appeared and argued this appeal on their behalf.

(2.) THE prosecution story briefly stated was that on 19 -7 -1991 Kamla (PW 1), a married woman, aged about 30 years, left her maternal place in Vijaypur in district Guna for her in -laws' place at village Harchanda -ka -Tapra in Rajasthan. Her cousin sister Guddi (PW 4), also a married woman, aged about 23 years, was also accompanying her. Both the women went on foot up to Ruthiyai railway -station. There they boarded a train for Atroo. At Atroo Kamla was informed by two persons, named Girraj and Mukut of her in -laws' village that Kamla's husband had got involved in an accident and was admitted in a hospital of village Baraa. Both the women then left with those two persons in the same train for Baraa. When the train reached Barra at the dead of the night around 24 hours, they started on foot for Baraa Hospital. On way, accused persons came on two motor -cycles. They forcibly made the two women to sit on their motor -cycles, Kamla on the motor -cycle of appellant Mangilal and Guddi on the motor -cycle of appellant Babulal. The appellants took them away to their village Nagda at a distance of about 70 or 80 miles. It was further the prosecution case that appellant Mangilal kept Kamla wrongfully confined in a room and the other appellant Babulal kept Guddi wrongfully confined in another room for about 3 days. During that period, the two appellants repeatedly ravished the women. Ultimately, appellant Mangilal took Kamla to his field and again ravished her. He also gave her Rs. 15,000/ - in a bag and let her go. Kamla then lodged a report (Ex. P -3) at Sheopur Police Station on 24 -7 -1991. She took the police to village Nagda, where Guddi was recovered from the house of appellant Babulal. It was on these facts that the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the manner already indicated, by the trial Court.

(3.) THE story that two persons told Kamla that her husband was involved in an accident and was admitted in a hospital in village Baraa and on hearing that news Kamla (PW 1). and Guddi (PW 4) went in the company of those two persons to village Baraa and further that before they could reach Baraa Hospital two motor -cyclists came on the road and forcibly took the two women on their motor -cycles, despite the presence of the two alleged companions with the women, sounds all make believe. The alleged two persons were also named in the prosecution story as Girraj and Mukut belonging to Harchand -ka -Tapra, which is Kamla's in -laws' village. Those two persons .were not examined by the prosecution for reasons best known to the prosecution. There is also the circumstance that the two women were allegedly forcibly taken on motor -cycles for such a long distance as 70 or 80 miles. Sensing that this was a weak part of the prosecution story, Kamla (PW 1) went to the length of stating that each motor -cycle had two persons on it and that each woman was made to sit on the motorcycle between those two persons. Guddi (PW 4) however told the truth that each motor -cycle had only one person sitting, namely the appellants, who were each driving a motor -cycle.