^S^fcS^!^' TSSS^^.- ;"w^ BIS i;y i—Bii ?,/.,':,::-a^^;aggssBBien Kw-^.ulKSis'^^'SSSSSSS ~v^.- o / ^'^ i'S.^f~~^~.. *-- . , ; Si-^K^' «* ' ' ~- '• M THE HIGH COIBT OF MADHYA PB&BESH AT JABALPt®. CKBIINAL APPEAL NO.\^3\___OF 1992 APPELL^TS i ".-.?'> / (1) Mangal Seai'son of Dakha §aaSonl., age3 24_yearsy resideat of \ Kansabel, P.S. Kansabel,' District Raiga.rh,/ ' ^' • ^ ' ^" - , _! / ' (2) Hasia SOR of Kasia Musalmara, aged about 18 years/ resident of Indra Nagar, P.S. Balgarh, '° Tahsil arad Distriet BaigaEh^ -yersias- /•'. ' State of ffiadhya Pradesh, J yirough Dis-tridfc Magis-trate,' Raigarb. cy^ Sen-tence Mangal Seni ; S/s. 363/34 - 3 years B.I* BESPONBBNT -4 -I!" .;«i'»*M''a-t.i® isSs^SeSf^S^S.S. .^&^;&?fTS;iJ^ia HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) Criminal Appeal No. 401 of 1992. APPELLANTS RESPONDENT VERSUS Mangal Soni and another. State of Madhya Pradesh. Shri Neel Kanth Malviya counsel for appellants. Shri Neeraj Mehta PL for respondent/State. CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. J U DGIVI ENT (17.03.2010) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21."3(.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Trial No. 172/1990 convicting accused/appellant No.1 Mangal Soni for the offences punishable under Sections 363/34, 366 (k)/34 and 376/34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, four years and five years on each count, and convicting accused/appellant No.2 Hasim for the offences under sections 363/34 and 366 (k)/34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and four years on each count. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 9.7.1990 FIR (Ex.P- 1) was lodged by one Hem Prakash Sharma (PW-1 ), the father of the prosecutrix alleging that on 7.7.1990 his daughter (the prosecutrix) had eloped with accused/appellants. Later, on 12.7.1990 another repert Ex. P-5 was lodged by him mentioning that his daughter was? in the custody of accused/appellant No.1 Mangal Soni. Record shows that on S.J.1990, prosecutrix (PW-5) had returned to her village and then her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded in which shetiad made an allegation against the accused/appellants that she was allured away by accused/appellant Mangal Soni on the assurance of marriage. The prosecutrix was first taken to Raigarh on bicycle and Jhen to village Chirodawhere she stayed in the house ofco-accused —2.- Chhatar Singh alias Chhatrapal Singh who has been acquitted by the frial Court of the charges levelled against him, and was subjected to sexual intercourse by accused/appellant Mangal Soni on the assurance of marriage. Thereafter, she came back to village Kansabel from where she was sent back to her house. On the basis of statement of the prosecutrix investigation was done and after its completion challan was filed against the present appellants and also against co-accused Chhatar Singh alias Chhatrapal Singh for the offences punishabte under sections 363, 366 and 376/34 IPC. 3. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded undersection 313 oftheCode of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has acquitted accused Chhatar Singh alias Chhatrpal Singh of the charges levelled against him but convicted and sentenced the present appellants for the offences as mentioned above. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including thejudgment impugned. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that appellant Mangal Soni has already undergone the entire sentence imposed on him by the Court below. As regards his conviction, Counsel for the appellants submits that he is not pressing this appeal. In respect of accused/appellant Hasim, counsel for the appellants submits that the only role assigned to him is that he had accompanied accused/appQll^nt Mangal Soni when the prosecutrix was taken away <by him. He submits tha^ even if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is, offences under sections 363 and 366 IPC are not made out against him. 7. On theother hand counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgroent impugned and submits that his conviction under it.; w ?T: ?1, s jl 1^1 \ ['V'\ a - -s— Section 363 and 366 IPC is in accordance with the material available on record and therefore no interference with the same is called for. 8. Prosecutrix (PW-5) has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident when she had gone to fetch water from a nearby tap, accused/appellants came there and asked her to accompany them to Raigarh to meet herfriend Jhimi. Then, after informing her parents she went to Raigarh on the bicycle of accused/appellant Mangal Soni. At Raigarh, they went to watoh a movie and then to Nehru Park. Then she was taken to the house of one Jirakhan and after taking meals they went to village Chiroda by bus. In village Chiroda they stayed in the house of co-accused Chhatar Singh alias Chhatrapal Singh where on the pretext of marriage accused/appellant Mangal Soni committed sexual intercourse with her. Hem Prakash Sharma (PW-1), father of the prosecutrix; Dropdi Bai (PW-2), mother of the prosecutrix; Minketan Prasad Tripathi (PW-3), maternal uncle of the prosecutrix have not made any allegation against accused/appellant Hasim and whatever they have stated is in respect of accused/appellant Mangal Soni. 9. Thus from the entire material available on record it is clear that no allegation of any sort has been made against accused/appellant Hasim. Even the prosecutrix has not stated anything against this accused/appellant except that • he remained in the company of accused/appellant Mangal Soni while she was taken away by him. Accordingly, the conviction of the accused/appellant Hasim under Sections 363 and 366 IPC appears to be contrary to the material available on record and therefore it cannot be allowed to stand. 10. Conclu§ion' of this appeal so far as it relates to accused/app'ellant Mangal Soni is dismissal as not pressed. Impugned judgment relating*-to him is maintained. As regards accused/appellant Hasim, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment relating to him is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds stand discharged. Sd/'- Pntinker Diwaker Judge !f\lr ;.