GOKAL RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed by the convicted accused-persons Gokal Ram and Naina Ram against a judgment dated 20.5.1987 whereby both were found guilty by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 368 and 392 of the I.P.C. For each offence rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 100/- was awarded. For non-payment of fine additional simple imprisonment for 15 days on each count was awarded. Principal Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Since both the appeals pertain to the said judgment both are being disposed of by this Judgment.

(2.) On 13.8.1986 Smt. Ramu W/o Narayan lodged an oral FIR at police station Hanumangarh Junction, according to which she was married to Narayan Gujar and had a daughter aged 1 years. Some 7-8 days prior to 13.8.1986, the appellant Nainaram allegedly went to her in-laws house and conveyed that he has received 2-3 letters from Ahmedabad written by the sister of Smt. Ramu and believing Nainaram she proceeded with him without seeking permission of her husband or any other member of the family. According to the FIR they proceeded on foot and soon Gokal joined them. During the night they stayed in Village 'Atholiya' and next day she along with two appellants reached Jaipur by bus. At Jaipur the appellants assured her that they are taking her to Ahemdabad. However, next day they took her to Hanumangarh where she was lodged in a room. According to the FIR, the appellant Gokal Ram gave a severe beating to her and insisted that she should marry the brother of Gokal Ram. After she declined the offer her ornaments were removed by the two appellants. A case under Sections 366, 1 368 and 392 of the I.P.C. was registered and ultimately, both the appellants were put to trial and both were found guilty in the aforesaid manner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned public prosecutor for the State and have perused the record of the s trial Court. I find that the conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court are not sustainable and both the appeals deserve to be allowed.