BHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise from the same judgment of the learned trial Court which convicted the appellants-Bhim Singh and Devinder Singh for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinfater referred to as 'I.P.C'.) and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 363 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for offences punishable under Section 366 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Both the accused were charged for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B I.P.C. Appellant Bhim Singh was the driver of Maruti Esteem in which the prosecutrix PW3 was purportedly kidnapped. The other convict Babu Ram who was sentenced for offences under Section 376 I.P.C. and accused Hem Lata convicted under Sections 363, 366 and 120-B I.P.C. have not preferred any appeal.

(3.) The prosecution case in brief is that the prosecutrix was undergoing training of stitching clothes etc. with accused Hem Lata. It was urged that at the time of the incident the prosecutrix was aged about 15 years. On the fateful day, she did not return home from the training centre, where after, the matter reported to the police and recorded in daily diary Ext.PW1/A. The case of the prosecutrix is that she had gone to Dehar after a telephonic call from Hem Lata who took her towards the bridge. She stopped her car and pushed the prosecutrix inside after gagging her mouth. She threatened her that in case she raised any hue and cry she would kill her. Accused Bhim Singh was driving the car and Devinder Singh was sitting in the car. Accused Devinder Singh told the other accused to leave the girl as she appeared to be minor. She was taken to Shimla and forcibly married to Babu Ram. A number of submissions were made before the learned trial Court by all the accused. One being that she had filed an affidavit Ext.DA in which she had disclosed her age as 19 years. This affidavit was attested before the Executive Magistrate, Shimla (Urban). She was identified by one Sh. Harinder Singh, Advocate which fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court.