SADDIQUE MOHD. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The afore mentioned appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 25.4.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur, whereby he found appellant Saddique Mohd. and Smt. Varju guilty for the offences under sections 363, 366A, 368 & 344 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment for the first offence, to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment on the second count and a composite sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default to further undergo 10 days simple imprisonment for the offences under section 368 & 344 I.P.C. The learned trial Judge also convicted appellant Saddique Mohd. for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced him to 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.00 in default to further under go 10 days simple imprisonment. He further directed that all the substantive sentences inflicted on the appellants shall run concurrently.

(2.) Succinctly stated the relevant facts are that in Nov., 1985, appellants came to the house of PW. 1 Heera Meena resident of village Sadkadi along with PW. 8 Smt. Noji. The appellants induced P.W. 3 Smt. Mangli, the wife of informant P.W. 1 Heera Meena, to accompany them to visit the fair at village Digri. The appellants also induced Smt. Mangli to take her minor daughter P.W. 2 Surji aged about 14-15 years. Thereupon Smt. Mangli along with Surji accompanied the appellants. However the appellants instead of going to Digri fair look them to Udaipur. It alleged that the appellants kidnapped and abducted Mst. Surji, knowing that it was likely that she would be forced or seduced to intercourse with another person. The appellants also wrongfully confined the prosecutrix in the house of P.W. Heera Lal at Udapur. Thereafter they took her to Jodhpur and Jaipur. It is alleged that during this period, appellant Saddique Mohd. committed rape with Surji number of times. The appellants also wanted to sell her. Thereafter the appellants brought the prosecutrix to Udaipur, where finding an opportunity, she narrated her woeful tale to P.W. 5 Amba La. It is further alleged that P.W. 1 Heera Meena, who was searching for his daughter, ultimately came to know that Surji was rescued by P.W. 5 Amba Lal. Thereafter he lodged a written report Ex.P. 1 on 10.12.85 at Police Station, Sarada, where P.W. 10 Rajcsh Soral registered the case. Surji was recovered on 13.12.85 vide recovery memo Ex.p. 2. The doctor after radiological examination opined that the age of the prosecutrix was about 14-15 years. The prosecutrix was also medically examined and her stained Ghaghra and vaginal smear were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. As per F.S.L. report, the ghaghra of the prosecutrix was found stained with human semen, while in her vaginal smear, no semen could be detected. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a challan against the appellants in the court of M.J.M., Salumber, who committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. The appellants in their plea recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C denied the circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, but asserted that since they have married each other the prosecution witnesses bore animosity against them. However, they did not adduce any evidence in their defence. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellants for the offence under section 384 I.P.C., but convicted them for the offences under sections 363, 366A, 368 & 344 I.P.C. and also found guilty appellant Saddique Mohd. for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced them in the manner detailed above. Hence these appeals.

(3.) I have heard Shri M.K. Garg the learned Advocate for the appellants and Smt. Chandra Lekha Parihar, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State at length and perused the relevant record.