STATE OF HP Vs. SHARIF MOHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal appeal has come-up for consideration after leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been granted, in reference to the impugned judgment dated 1.1.1999, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Sessions Trial No. 27-S/7 of 1998, acquitting the respondents-accused for the offence, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 29.6.1997 one Rafiq Mohammad accompanied his wife and two children went to the field of one Atma Ram and had engaged one Mohan Singh and his wife Promila to make baskets for him. One Sakinder Batt Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? was also at his place that day. In the absence of Rafiq Mohammad and his wife, respondents-accused Sakura Begum and Hanif Mohammad went to their house. Respondent- accused Sakura Begum is a sister of said Rafiq Mohammad, while Hanif Mohammad is Sakura Begum's husband. Both took victim/prosecutrix to a forest on the pretext that they needed her help to load fuel wood on the back of a mule and when they reached the forest, respondent-accused Sharif Mohammad, who was hiding in the forest, also joined them. They gagged victim's/prosecutrix mouth and one of them physically lifted her and took her to village Khail. On the way, respondent-accused Sharif Mohammad was proclaiming that he would marry victim/prosecutrix, even if she was not willing and as such, victim/prosecutrix was taken to the house of the Pradhan of the Panchayat and kept her there. From the house of the Pradhan of the Panchayat, she was taken to the house of one Ali Sher and kept there. Victim's/prosecutrix father Rafiq Mohammad was informed about the incident by one Mohammad Din, around 6.00 P.M. when he was still in the field of Atma Ram and after going to home enquired from Mohan Singh and his wife, whom he had engaged for making baskets for him, the couple told him that respondents-accused Sakura Begum and Hanif Mohammad had taken away his daughter. Said Sharifu Din was working as a police constable, who thereafter lodged FIR No. 77 of 1997. Accordingly, respondents-accused persons were charged for the aforesaid offence and case was committed to the Sessions Court.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses, namely, PW-1 Rafiq Mohammad, PW-2 Mohan Singh, PW-3 Mohammad Din, PW-4 victim/prosecutrix, PW-6 Sharifu Din and PW-7 Bidhi Singh, whereas, the respondents-accused through their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and examined one Ali Sher in defence.