BHAGWATI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment and conviction passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, on 19. 6. 1982, in Sessions case No. 56/1980, whereby the appellant Om Prakash was convicted under Section 342 I. P. C and sentenced to six months R. I. and also a fine of Rs. 200/ -. In default of payment of which, he has to further undergo R. I. for one month. Accused appellant Man Singh was convicted under Section 366/342 IPC and sentenced to R. I. for five years and also a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which, he has to further undergo R. I. for three months. Accused appellant Bhagwati was sentenced u/s 376/366/342 IPC and sentenced to five years R. I. and also a fine of Rs. 500/- on each count, in default of payment of which he has to undergo R. I. for three months.

(2.) IT will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that a Parcha-bayan (statement) of prosecutrix Pushpa was recorded at Police Station Hindaun, district Sawaimadhopur, on March 28, 1980, wherein it was stated by her that she came to meet her elder sister Mst. Parvati, alongwith her mother at village Chinaita, P. S. Hindaun. Her sister was married to Ram Khiladi. She came about 5-6 months before the incident took place. After 2-3 days, Ram Khiladi and his brothers (accused-appellants Bhagwati and Man Singh) turned her mother out of their house after threatening her and kept prosecutrix confined in the house. These persons pressurised her to marry Bhagwati but she refused. Appellant Bhagwati used to rape her against her will and also used to beat her. She further staled that last day Man Singh and Bhagwati brought her to village Hindaun to sell her to some person and kept her hidden in the house of an Advocate and confined her in a wooden cabine of a barber in the night. On her shouts, she was rescued by Police Constables. She wants to go to her mother. On this statement, the Police registered a case under Secs. 376, 366 and 342 I. P. C. against the appellants. The prosecutrix was also examined under Section 164 Cr. P. C. and after completing the investigation, challan was submitted. Accused appellants were committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur, who framed charge against the accused persons under the above mentioned Section. After examining the evidence of the prosecutrix and defence and hearing both the parties the appellants were found guilty and convicted as mentioned above.

(3.) IN his statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr, P. C. appellant Bhagwati has stated that prosecutrix is his married wife and the marriage was performed by consent of her mother and prosecutrix herself and that he did not give any threats or beatings to prosecutrix. He has also stated that he has married prosecutrix in accordance with the Hindu Customs and therefore has lived with her as husband and wife. He has also stated that he and his brother Man Singh had taken prosecutrix to an Advocate at Hindaun. He went away to factory and prosecutrix was taken by Man Singh to the Advocate. He has also stated that prosecutrix was brought to Hindaun. Sohan Singh and Mst. Shanti had abducted the prosecutrix and they had got her released with difficulty from village. D. W. 1 Rameshwar Prasad is an Advocate in whose office the prosecutrix alleges to have been confined for full day. He has stated that prosecutrix came along-with appellant Man Singh for the first time on March 22, 1980 in his house at Hindaun. He drafted an F. I. R. on the allegations stated by the prosecutrix and sent the same to Dy. S. P. and S. H. O. Hindaun & also sent a copy to S. P. Sawai Madhopur. He states that he had told them that if nothing happens for 5-7 days, they should come to him again for lodging a complaint in Court. Thereafter both of them came to him to his office on March 27, 1980. On the version given by the prosecutrix and F. I. R. he drafted a complaint against Sohan Singh and Mst. Shanti, both of whom are of village Chinaita. On the same day both of them came to Court and when the call for filing application complaints was given, the complaint was filed by the prosecutrix herself with his assistance. He states that neither on March 22, 1980, nor on March 27, 1980, the prosecutrix was ever confined in his office. He states that she never entered in his house as alleged by her. He also states that Mahendra Singh A. S. I. , P. S. Hindaun, had pressurised him not to appear for prosecutrix as he wanted that she should start living with his younger brother. However, he refused not to appear on behalf of Mst. Pushpa. He informed Bar Association, Hindaun, regarding this matter in writing and a resolution, was passed and the Advocates went on strike. Procession was also taken out by the Advocates. A deputation of Advocates also called upon S. P. Sawaimadhopur and he had also accompanied them.