PATI RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the course of his patrolling duties on 14.9.1981 PW 3 Ram Chandra, the then Station House Officer Police Station Saipau, received a secret information that at Haveli Ka Nagla under the jurisdiction of such police station a lady had been kept in wrongful confinement/detention by the certain persons. On such information Ramchandra. S.H.O. reached the house of Pati Ram-appellant where he found PW I Sint. Naresh Kuman, allegedly stated aged about 17 years. On being questioned by the S.H.O., PW I Smt. Naresh Kumari stated that she was an un-married girl and had been living with her parents at Delhi; that in the same locality one Smt. Sharifan along with his son Alisher also used to reside; that she used to-call Smt. Sharifan as Buwaji; that on Shari fan's persuasion she left the house of her parents for Ghaziabad (U.P.) in order to find job there; that Smt. Shari fan and her Son took her to Ghaziabad where she stayed with them for some time; that after a stay for some days Alisher, on the pretext that he would take her to Delhi to find a job for her there took her by train to Aligarh wherefrom she was taken to Agra by bus, that from Agra she was taken to Kheragarh where Alisher left her at the house of Ram Dayal and Dongar-appellants. Smt. Naresh Kumari further told Shri Ram Chandra SHO that Dongar kept her at the house of his sister in a village nearby and committed rape upon her there; that after some time Dongar took her to the house of Pati Ram-appellant in village Haveli Ka Nagla where Pati Ram committed rape upon tier; that at Haveli Ka Nagla she came to know that Ram Dayal, Dongar and Alishshar had sold her to Pati Ram for Rs. 4,000.00. On the basis of such information which he obtained from Smt. Naresh Kumari, PW 3 Ram Chandra SHO registered crime No. 127 of 1981 under section 363, 366, 368 & 376 Penal Code against the aforesaid persons. After investigation, the present appellants were charge-sheeted for having committed offences under sections 363, 366, 368 & 376 IPC.

(2.) The learned trial Court framed charges under sections 368 & 376 1PC against Pati Ram-appellant, under section 363 & 3661PC against Ram Dayal and Dongar-appellants, and on their pleading not guilty to the aforesaid charges, he tried them accordingly. On the basis of the statement of PW 1 Smt. Naresh Kumari, PW 2 Vasudevo and PW 3 Ram Chandra and after rejecting the testimony of the sole evidence of DW 1 Than singh, the learned trial Court held Ram Dayal and Dongar Singh guilty of the offence under section 366 Penal Code and Pati Ram Ws. 368 IPC. Ram Dayal was acquitted of the offence under section 376 1PC and all the three appellants were acquitted of the offence under section 363 IPC. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned trial Court dt. 28.5.1984 made in Sessions case No. 16/84 (51/83) State Vs. Pati Ram & Ors. , by way of the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. K.N. Shrimali, the learned counsel for the appellants took me through the entire evidence available on the record of the trial Court and submitted that there was no iota of reliable evidence on the record of the trial Court to hold the present appellants or any of them guilty of any of the charges for which they have been convicted of. Mr. Shrimal, learned counsel for the appellants, high lighted that whereas the prosecution case against the appellant, as given in the FIR was that Narsh Kumari was an un-married minor girl of about 17 years of age and had been induced to go with Alishar and his mother from the house of her father PW 2 Vasudeo, the case put-forth by the prosecution at the trial was that Smt. Naresh Kumari was a married woman and that on being fed-up with the cruel treatment meted-out by her at the hands of her husband, Ashok, she left his house of her own and had gone to Ghaziabad with Alishar and his mother Smt. Sharifan to find-out a job there. Mr. Shrimali further stressed that the basis of charge for offence u/s. '366 Penal Code was kidnapping of a minor girl or woman with intention to get her married with another person against her will and consent. But in the instant case, it is clear from the testimony of PW 1 Smt. Naresh Kumari herself that she, on being fed-up with the cruel treatment meted-out by her at her husband's hands, had left her husband's company of her own sweet will, possibly in order to find out the company of some other person elsewhere. Mr. Shrimali thus urged that if the prosecution case is read in the light of the above circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that no offence under section 366/368 Penal Code was committed against her in the present case by any of the appellants.