KEDARNATH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed the present appeal against the judgment dated 08.08.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No.195/2002 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi, thereby convicting the appellants under Sections 363, 368 of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years, 3 years along with fine of Rs.1000/- each and, in default of payment, of fine there would be separate imprisonment for a period of 4 months for each.

(2.) In short, the prosecution story is that one accused namely Ramdarash Jogi has kidnapped the prosecutrix namely Karuna Pandey on 2/3rd November, 2002 at night, when she was sleeping in her parents house in the separate room. Ramdarash Jogi entered in the house and he compelled her to perform marriage with him otherwise he threatening to kill her and also to sent the entire family members of the prosecutrix to jail. The presecutrix thereafter came with the accused Ramdarash Jogi and was kept in the house of the present appellants. It has been alleged that the appellants abducted knowing the fact that the accused Ramdarash Jogi had kidnapped and abducted to the prosecutrix wrongfully for the purpose of compelling her to marry with Ramdarash Jogi. It has alleged that the appellants have abducted the prosecutrix for a period of six days in their house in the separate room. Thereafter, Deendayal Pandey who is the cousin brother of the prosecutrix has lodged an FIR in the police station on 09.11.2002 lodging missing report. On this report, the police made the search and recovered prosecutrix on 18.11.2012 and thereafter completing the requisite formalities and after investigation, a challan was filed. Thereafter, the trial Court has framed the charges for committing the offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 368, 376 of the IPC. However, after trial and considering the prima facie case against the present appellants, convicted appellants for committing the offences under Sections 366 and 368 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

(3.) After perusal of the overall evidence, the order of conviction passed by the trial Court does not call for any interference. However, in the present case, the appellants were released on bail on 08.02006 and prior to that the appellants were in jail during the trial for a period of 22 days and after conviction about 213 days. Thus for a period of 235 days, the appellants were in jail, the fine amount has already been deposited by the appellants. In the present case, the trial Court has convicted the appellants for a period of 5 years imprisonment out of which the appellants were in jail for 235 days, therefore, relying on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Faiyaz Ahmed and Others Vs. State of Bihar, (1990) AIR SC 2147. The order of jail sentence imposed on the appellants can be converted into a conviction which is already under gone. It is also to be noted that in the case, the incidence is of the year 2002 and this appeal is pending since 2005 and, therefore, the appellants must have undergone mental agony for a period of 13 years.