SULEMAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, dated 6.10.2001, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, whereby the appellants, Suleman son of Ali Sher, and Tanjilla wife of Suleman, were held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 367 read with Section 34 and Section 368 read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 113, dated 31.8.1994, registered at Police Station, Dhuri, District Sangrur, and each one of them was ordered to undergo the following sentences: - - <IMG>JUDGEMENT_87_LAWS(P&H)5_2015.jpg</IMG>

(2.) BOTH the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently argued that despite the fact that Rashidan (PW -1) and Rabia (PW -2) have not deposed specifically with regard to their kidnapping or abduction, but Rabia (PW -2) was very clear in her deposition that Tanjilla (Appellant No. 2) had enticed Rabia to accompany her by saying that there were so many places to visit in Punjab. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the State has also read out the statement of Rabia (PW -2), recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C., by Mr. S.K. Sharma (PW -8), the then Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate. He further argued that the recovery of Rashidan (PW -1) and Rabia (PW -2) from the house of Suleman (PW -4) would clearly spell out that they were not only kidnapped but were further sold to Suleman (PW -4).