CHHAJJU RAM MARU RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHHAJJU, aged 21 and Kri-shan Lal, aged about 35, were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal code. They were convicted under Section 363 of the Code and sentenced to one and a half year's rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of one hundred and fifty rupees each. In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half months each. They were also convicted under section 366 of the Penal Code and sentenced to one and a half years' rigorous imprisonment besides a fine of two hundred rupees each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half months each, vide his order dated the 30th November, 1967. The appellants have come up in appeal to this Court. Hari Chand, complainant, also has put in revision (Criminal revision No. 102 of 1968) for the enhancement of sentence. The appeal and the revision will both be disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) THE prosecution story briefly runs as under. Hari Chand was residing in Sirhind mandi where the two appellants kept their shops. Hari Chand had a daughter named Vijay Kumari aged about 15 years on the day of her abduction, i. e. , the 17th May, 1967. It is stated that on that day, at about 10 p. m. , Vijay Kumari was sleeping on the roof of her house along with other children when the two appellants came up there and woke her up. Chhajju Ram, appellant, placed his hands on her mouth and also a handkerchief close to her nose which was besmeared with some medicine to cause drowsiness to Vijay Kumari. Both the appellants thereafter lifted her from the cot and tool her to a kick room of the shop of Chhajju Ram. She was made to sit on a cot. The appellants sprinkled water on her face to bring her back to her normal senses. The appellants then made her sit in their middle and started moving their hands on her body including the breasts in order to outrage her modesty. It was then that Hari Chand who obviously ran some sort of cinema house returned from their at about 11-15 P. M. , and was apprised by his wife that Vijay kumari was missing. He went upstairs and found her cot empty but other children asleep there. He noticed some light in the shop of Chhajju Ram appellant which adjoins the house or Hari Chand. Hari Chand I went on the back of that shop in the courtyard and through a chink saw Vijay Kumar sitting on a cot in between the two appellants. They were sprinkling water on her face and hugging her in a lustful manner at that time. He knocked at the door which alarmed the appellants, who then took Vijay Kumari towards the main gate of the shop and after opening it pushed her out. Her father also in the meantime came in front of the shop and met Vijay Kumari in the bazar and took her to his house. Vijay Kumari told him and her mother her tale of woe. Hari Chand then went to the police station and lodged report Exhibit P A and after due investigation the appellants were sent up for trial under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) WHEN examined under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they denied the allegations against them. The prosecution examined a number of witnesses but the fate of this case hinges on the statements of Hari Chand and her daughter vijay Kumari; the rest of the witnesses are almost formal.