HEGH COURT OF CHHATTESGARH, BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH; £QE‘E’BLE Sam R. L. JHAHWAR‘ J. W G3 Crimm&k Amweak Ma. 202i 21992 &PPELL&N’§$ Banshidhar €32; others Yexsus RESPQNDENT Stam of MP, (.now CG.) JUDGMENT POST ON 2'7 NOVEMBER, 200§ Sd/- f R.L. Jhanwar Judge emu/2009 E”§§C3H CQURT €3F CEiiHAT'?%SGAF§H: giLASPE‘ER aWGLE EENSH HQ‘G’ELL $Hm RAJESW RmR LAL .§ ' NW R: u G g‘imiriaaii Mmgwfww Bamshidhar, Sic: Tulsa? 3aréhi, aged 32 years Tm cy, 5k; mmiarr sarihix aged 50 yeam Murmh y, Sb Thaésa: $arth§, ageci 28 yeaxfs Gopa§, Sfo Fuisai Sart‘ni, aged 30 years Lgmc. um: 1 AR residem of ViRagé Lcd‘niyax Poiice Station Baramdela, Etaistrici Raigarh (MP) ‘v‘ewus a3 omen“: Siaie cf MP. ihrough Districi Magistraie, Raigarh {MP} A : eai uls 32% 2 af ihe ewe of mimimai @rocedug Pre$em: - Shn h S Patek roumel for the apppiiant$ Snn Amnd Shukia Pane! Lawyel for the State .j ‘u‘ D G M E NT {De!ivered ong?__1 1/2009) ‘x. ihls cr mmai appeal Is czirected agamsx $he 1ucgment o‘ ccnmcrson and order of sentence oatea S‘h Januaw. 1992 pa$sed xr S.T. No.4gl91 whereoy ’me ieame§ 2nd Additiomt Sessions Juu'ge, Raigai‘h ha$ convicted ihe appeiiara‘ts under Seaficm 366 of tiie IPC and seniancad each 0f them i0 undergo R‘i‘ for 3 ,eais ar x0 pay a we er Ra 500/— m dam}? o. ,Jaymen‘t of fine to mrther Lmdergo RJ. far 3 manms. ¢ g. . Pfosecui'ien siory, in Erie? is that the prosesutrix resided with her faiher Maiim‘am, mo€her—Kirtikunwa¥ and breihei' $hyamkumar in ihe Viiiege Babarai P5. u Beremkeia. Appeiiani — Banshid‘nar eioped i‘rie pmsecutrix to his viiiage Lodhiya and they lived there for 3 days. Maiiuiam, father of the prosecutdx en receivinrs in‘ormaiion teat the presecutrix wee living with Banshidahr, he pre erred an applieauon befeie S D M S angarh in ihe ma‘ier he S D M. en me has s o; this app :catim isemd sea'ch wanant add ihereafier prosecutnx was produced sefore me SDM. The presecuinx nae deposed that si‘e \I ad s to iive wiih her parents. Upon Which. the SDMssen’: the preeeeuirix n ihe iawful guardianship of her parents. Qn ihe daie ofincident ie. 0n 23‘1,1§§1 if @ £x ee2E .9. Wham the pt‘osewtrix aiang Wi‘m her pafenis {etuming to the‘ir vHiage-Dabra and as scan as axey gci dowr‘. from bus, appeEEan’Es came there amd appeiiants Bansh§c§)‘tar 8: Mug'iidhar were trying to take the pmsecutrix wiih them by nuuing her. t fh n they opposeo, I the r appellants abused them and threatened to kill ’mem ‘fhe imment was seen by Uibhaiia, Mandai and THoki Naih Nayak am” othe? peosie‘ ‘E'he a9pe§§anfs issk the preSesu‘irix i‘Grcibiy. Eeinq threatened by iine apgeiiam, Shyam Kumar, bfe‘they of the prosecutr§x ha$ narrated ihe incmem to chowkidar -Bhagwandas and $arpaah~ Tribkj. Therea§ten 0?? sugge§ian sf Bhagwandas am? Wicki, Maliuram lodged {Ewe report, EXP-4 , in the poke sia'tion. mvestigazbn iook mace Statements under $ectiora 16? n vr..m .u.‘were A recorded. The pro§ecutrix was recovered frem the house of appelrem" Banshidhar vide seizure memo er“ EXP-5‘ After ccmpretmg ef investigatien, eharge sheet was filed En the Cour‘: of JMFC, Sarangarh, who Em due course commii'ted the case to irre Cour? 0f Sueesicne. ’Fhe 1eamed Sessions Judge made over rheo‘caee f0 the ieamed 2m Additionai S’essmns Judge, Rargarh for trier. The ieamed Additiona! Seseions Judge framed charge under Sections 2g4‘ 506 and 366 of ihe IPC and was expbined to %he appeirents. The appeiiants abEured the guiit end teak a defense that they are innocent and have been teieety impiicated in the case. The teamed edditicnai Seesions Judge, after evatuating the evidence avaEiebie on recoa’d, whiie acquitting the appe‘dents frem the charge under Sections 294. 8: 506 ef the EPC, convicted them under Section 366 of the IPC and eehtehced them as above. . i have heard iearned counsei tor both the parties at lengthoand perused the '4. record of the trial Court. Learned triat Court convicted the appeilants on the basis of testimony of Shyamkurner (PWJ), Bhegwendas (P.W.6), Prosecutnx (P.W.8) and itfiatturam {ewe}. Section 366 of the IPG reads as under:- 4« “3€§. Kt‘dneeping, abductingxor inducing weman to compel her marriage, etc.- Whoever kidnaps or abducts any wowen with intent that she may be compeiied, or knowieg it t0 be iikeiy' that she wiii be compeiied, to marry any {eerson against her wiii, or in order that she may be forced or eeduoed to iiiicit intercoerse, or knowing it to he likely that she wiii be forced or seduced to iliicit intercourse. shah be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten i i l \ Wan, and anaH aka: m Enaiyle to me [am Whoevm by mews of c tmmal miimmiamn as denned in th $ bode or 0f abuse af auhoraw or any mher method of campuisisn, mduse$ any wnman is g9 'rom any mace WW: imam mat she way be 0r Fnowing ’mat it it Eikay mat she Wis} be forcexi or sewced Ls “Elm mtcrconrse wmh anathe‘ 96mm 5mm be pmzsname as a" reaanH m ‘é’m's :a5e, it i$ ciear from the immgraed judgment ihai m ihe basis of smog} i "‘$im mg'siar ef the pmEeeuti’ix wherein her date 0f birth shown c be 2§ ? 1:161 :he 19a.,.et§ 50 r Saw? has heid the age 0‘? proSecu‘fxix aboai 25 yearsa, en the date or incident, which wa3 not disputed by the pmsecution. §t i2 alsa clear §§om the statemen": of witnesses and the $‘tat-emen'i 0f the prosecutrix %ha’i ihe‘ prosecutrix was handed- over to her father Maiiuram after the iegal proceedwQs befere ‘ihe Court of SDM, Serengem. 8n the baeis 9f etatemem givem by the prosecutrix before SDM. wee Ex.D—4, the SQM has otdered to l Luancover t zthe erosecuttix to her paremts. It is aiso evieen’t that 0n the same 1 mete, when tt’xe presecutrix was remmmg t0 he? Village atoag with her parents tram tee {:our‘r of SDM, 'the appeltante took the prosecutréx torctb‘ry‘ it is ateo evicte'nt from the evidence that the prosecutrix is daughter cf {\staituram (PAN3) and sister o? $yamkumar (P.W.1} a'it is evident form the statement of —Shyamkuamr (PAN?) Maiturem (PWS) and the proseoutrix (P.W.8} that the prosecutrix was taken by appetient — Behshidher forcibty from the lawfut guardianship of her parents. 1i} is evrdem fro n the statement of above Witnesses that when the prosecutnx eteng with her parents returned to her vritage from Serengam and got down from the bus, appettants huried filthy abuses on them and threatened to kiti them and thereager forctb‘y took prosecutrix to their V'Hege from the awfu (m enshrp of her parents Banshiohar had caught hold the nands of prosecuttiv and took the prosecutrix to their v1 iage by put mg her When Tritok: Nath asked appetienteaanshtdar as to why he took the prosecutnx, Benshiduar totd him that the prosecutrtx herseif accompanied with him. Eanshidhar atso threatened to ktlt Tritokt Nath. It is also evident that matter was report in the Polite Stetion— Baramkela by Shyamiah the report is Ex.P«t. it is also evident from the evidence of prosecutrix (P W a) that she was taken by the appeltants t “cibh, against her own freewr. tt vs also ancient forr the evrdence that aopeients aooucted the oroseouttix for solemnizing her marriage with Bawsidhar it s axso evrdent form the evrdence that when report was lotrged posse see oheo house of Banshrdhar and reco¢ered the prosecutnx before the n 00 g \ r \ i wiinessess Vida seizure meme EX.P~5. {i is aiaa evident thaé an the daie 0f imiderit, ’t‘ne presecuirix was in i‘ne iawfui gaardianship of her fatha' Mailurgm. ”21. Shyan‘ikumar {F.W.’§} and Maiiuram (RWE have Stated thaif wmn ihe i appeiiéni3 were iaking the pmsecuirix, ihey tried ta Siop them, hmgvever ‘me appeiianis hurieci fiiihy abus‘es an i‘hem ami ihz‘eataned to kiii them arid teak me pmsecuirix fafcibiy wi’ihcut cement of the pmsecutiix and father. The proseciuirix (P.W.8) aiso supported them and stated that she was forcibiy iake'n by appeiiam- Banshidhar and oiher appeiianis againsi: her wiii. in this way of the mgiiia, these 3 Witnesses ihough they are relaied it} sash other} have staiad :ihe incident or” faking the prosecuirix forcibiy by the appeiianis. in iheir iemgthy cross-examinafion ihey réiterated the statements aisa ii“; examinatian in w chief. in their depeeitioe, they have nai cantradicted iheir siatemenie given heme ‘ihe poiice. Thus, their siatements are also suppoeed by FIR ExP~i as aiso from ihe seizure memo EXP—5. ’r2. Shobhraj (Rm/.5) aise stated that accused perean (appeiianis) came on spot and they forcibiy took the proeecuirix from the iawfui guardianship of her father Maiiuram. He ioid the appeiiants as to why they are net deing as ordered by aiso threatened to kiii him. He further depeseci that the presecutrix was recovered from the hause of appeiiant — Banshidhar by the seizure memo 0f EXP-5‘ Triieki Nath Neyek {P.W2), though he has deciared hostiie, also supported the evidence of presecutrix and her brother Shyamkumar (P.W.1}. Amer Singh g’PWJt), Si. aise stated that he has written Ex.P.1 on the report oi Shyemkumer and has recovered the proeecutrix from the custody of Banshicihar, vide seizure memo of EXP-5. it is aiso evident that there are some contradictions in the evidence of above witnesses, bnt°they are minor contradictions Le. the eontradiction on the point of age of the prosecutrix, on the “V“ SDM, Sarangarh in connection with the presecutrix, hon/even the appeiiants, &‘ point or” time of incident and on the point of tiithy language used by the eppeiients. it is clear from the above evaiuation that the appeiiants forcibly abdsoteo’ the prosecutrix for soienrnizing her marriage with appeiiant - Banshidhar from the iewful guardianship of her parents. 13. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case against beyond reasonable doubt under Section 366 of the IPC against the accused/appeiiants. 14. The iearned lower Court in its judgment rightly appreciated each and every evidence adduced by the prosecution and found the appetients guilty tot the u... VV— \ . . A offence punishabie under Section 366 0f the {PC and sentenced them accordingw. The learned lower Court has not erred in conviciing the appeilante under Section 365 PC and sentencing them as abeve. 15. Having thus, considered the evidence avai!ab!e an recon} and aféer peru’sing the record, l em of the considered opinion that conviction of the appellanis under Section 366 of the IPC by the iearned triai Judge is impeccabie. There is no merit in this appeai, the same is iiable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. _‘ R.L. Jhanwar Judge \ 9 Sdl-