(1.) ALL the above titled appeals are arising from the same judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial No.1-NL/7 of 2001, decided on 7th January, 2002, whereby appellants Madhu Bala in Criminal Appeal No.30 of 2002 and Puran Singh Rautela in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2002 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of `25,000/- each, with default clause, whereas, the other respondents, namely Rajni Devi, Nirmala Devi and Sarita Goyal were acquitted and against their acquittal, the State has filed Criminal Appeal No.222 of 2002, hence taken up together for decision.
(2.) IN short, the prosecution case as emerges from the evidence on record, can be stated thus. Deceased Roshni Devi, daughter of PW1 Manfulia and PW3 Smt. Kamla Devi, was aged about 19 years. She was earlier working in "Deepak Spinning Mill" at Baddi (Nalagarh), District Solan and later she left the job. Her employer owned two years dues, thus on 21st April, 1999 she had gone to the said Mill for receiving her balance amount alongwith her younger sister Socha Devi.
(3.) SHRI R.K. Gautam, learned Senior Advocate for appellant Madhu Bala duly instructed by SHRI Vikrant Chandel and SHRI Rakesh Jaswal for appellant Puran Singh Rautela vehemently argued that the statements of the prosecution witnesses, in the instant case are contradictory and not inspiring confidence. They also argued that the alleged statement of dying declaration of the deceased is a fabricated document. To support their point, they led us through the evidence on record and further argued that it is a case of no evidence against the convict-appellants, whereas SHRI Tara Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel for Rajni Devi and also amicus curiae for Nirmla Devi; and SHRI Rajiv Jiwan learned Counsel for Sarita Goyal supported the impugned judgment of acquittal.