"^ as/fr •ijagie &siKb (y-asinai, IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR ^ ' • Criminal Appeal. Ho.^t;>^-)_/1995 . APPELLANTS ^' ^v' -"'T'^^ {Sw,M*M*Mtb»t^ei '» Ult*i 'f R.toD.K^ RESPONDffiNTS: ^ i. Liti Alias Nathlu, S/0 Negiram,aged about 35 years, Occupation - Cultivation, R/0 Village Thusipara, Banskot, Police Station-Keshkal, Distt. Bastar (M.P.).,/' .. / 2. Ghasiya S/0 Dhan Singh, /"aged about 35 years, Occupa^ion - Cultivation, R/0 yillage- Thusipara, Banskot, Police Station,Kishkal, Bastar (M.P.)</ 3. Sakalu S/0 sqmaru, -aged abput 37 years, Occupation- Cultivation, R/0 Village- Dihipara, Banskot, Police Station-Keshkal, Distt. Bastar (M.P.). -Versus- State of Madhya Pradesh, Through- District Magistrate, Bastar Distt. Bastar (M.P.).. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE td' !:lr 1 HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT rSB: Hon'ble Mr.Printinker Diwaker ,J.1 Cr. Aepeal No, 1085/19SS APPELLANTS Liti ASias Nathiu -and frA'o others. State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisaarh) Shri B.D.Guru with Shri Rajendra Tripathi, counsei TO!' the appeliant Shri Vivek Sharma, P.L for the State. APPEAL U/S 374 (2] OF THE_CODEOF CR'MINAL LJUDGMENT -S'^A !\^ ^nin^ ^£.a4-.VjC;.£Ui\f^ This appea! arises out of judgment and order dated 14.07.1395 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker in Sessions Trial No. 340 of 1992 whereby the appeiiants have been convicted under Section 354,366 and 386/34 ofthe i.P.C. and sentenced appeliant - Liti @ Nathiu to undergo simple imprisonment. for one year and rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sections 354 and 363 of the i.P.C. and pay fine of Rs.2000/- respectiveiy. Likewise, appeiiants - Sukaiu and Ghasiya have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fivs years under Section 368/34 and fine of Rs.1000/- each. In defauit to pay fine amount, appeiiant Liti @ Nathiu would undergo six months rigorous imprisonment whereas appeiiants - Suto.lu and Ghasiya were also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.06.1992 F.I.R. Ex.P.1 was lodged by the prosecuts'ix (P.W.1), aged about 19 years alleging thereln that on 09.06.1992 at about 4.00 P.W. when she was coliecting sarai leaves in ianskot jungle aSong her friends,' appellant No.1 Liti @. Nathiu came there, caught ho!d of her hand and foreibly took her to his house by dragging her. it is also aileged that appeiiants No.2 and 3 - Sukalu and Ghasiya had heiped appeliant No.1 in committing She said act. !t is further alisged that in the evening, the appellant No.1 had forcibiy marned the compiainant against he!" wili. titl.UJhiBL^. \5 3. in support of its case, the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses, Statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cods of Criminal Procedure (fo.r short 'the Code') in vfhich they denied the charges levslled agains't ihem and pieaded their innocence and false Implication in this case. 4. Aftsr hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appeliants for the offence as mentioned above. During the pendency of the present appeal, appei!ant No.3 - Suka'u has expirsd, and therefore, the present appeai confines to only appe!tent No.1 - Liti @ Na'th'u snd appeliant No.2 - Ghasiya only. 5. Heard iearned counsef for the parties and perused the material availabls OR record including thejudgment impugned, S. Contention of Shri B.D.Guru, 'iearned counsel for the appeliant is that present is a case of faise implication of the appeliants where the prosecutrix (P.W.1) hsrseif had accompanied appeiiant No.1 and thereafter he had performed the marriage with her consent. However, cn account of fesr of reiatives and society; she has falseiy implicated the appeliants. He furiher submits that the prosecutrix spent the entire night with appellant No.1 and did not return to her house immediately which shows that she was a consenting party. He further submits that eariier aiso the prosecutrix had come to appellant No.1, however, in society meeting some compromise took place. Lastly, it has been argued that the incident had taken piace in the year 1992 and the appeliants remained in jail for more than 3 months, therefore, t'neir sentence be reduced to the period a!ready undergone by thern. 7. On the other hand, Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counset for the State submits that there is enough evidence availabie on record warranting t'ne -conviction of the accused / appellants. He submits that at the time of the incident, the appellant was aiready married, and therefore, he has no authority whatsoever to perform the second marriage with the prosecutrix. 8. Prosecutrix (P.W.1) has categoricaiiy stated that on the date of incldent she had aone to Banskot iungle for coiiectina leaves along with her friends. Accused / appeliant No.1 Liti came there, caught hoid of her hand despite her resistance. Even when her friends had also made efforts to save 3- her from his clutohes, the accused / appeilant No.1 forcibiy removed her sari and somehow she couid come out from the clutehes of the accused v»'ith the help of her friends. She further stated t'natshe was chased by appellant No.1 and when she reached near rivutet, the accused / appeilant No.1 again caught hoid of her despite her resistance. At that point of tirne, the other accused persons nameiy Sukaiu (since deceased) and Ghasiya were a!so present there and the accused Sukalu told the appellant No.1 Liti to take the prosecutrix by saying that he will take the entire responsjbi!ity. It is also illeged that thereafter appeltants No.1 & 2 caught hold ofthe prosecutrix and dragged her to the house of appel!ant No.1 where appellant No.1 foreibiy performed marriage with her. She has also alieged that in that night she stayed with the appeliant No.1. However, in the moming, after getting an opportunity she rushed to her house and haci Informed t'ne entlre incident to her parents. She has stated that thereafter she !odged the F.1.R. Ex.P.1. She has further stated that her sari which was remoyed by appellant No.1 was coliected by her friends and they handed over the same to her parents and subsequently the same was seized vide Ex.P.2. As per Ex.P.3, which is a mark sheet of the prosecutrix, her age on the date of incident was about 19 years 10months. 9. In the cross-examination, the prosecutrix (P.W.1) is firm in her statement and has not deposed anything on whtch basis it can be said that her statement is not reliable or the same can be disbelieved. Statemsnt of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) has been duly supported by her friend Phulbasan (P.W.2), who has categorically stated about th.e manner in which the prosecutrix was abducted by the accused persons. She has also stated that along with her friends she too had made efforts to save the prosecutrix from the clutches of appeliant No.1 but she couid not succeed and the accused persons have forcibly taken the prosecutrix aiong with them. Sona Ram (P.W.3) is the villager who had seen the entire incident along with other villagers and had supported the statement of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) and Phulbasan (P.W.2). He also reiterated that the manner in which the prosecutrix was abducted. Nohar Singh Sengar (P.W.4), Principal of the School, has proved the date of birth ofthe prosecutrix. Ramgir Sen (P.VV.5) is the seizure witness and has also supported the prosecution case. K.S.Sahu (P.W.6), investigating officer, has duly supported the case of the -- ^' prosecution. Rama Shankar Mishra (P.W.7), Head Constabie, had registered the F.i.R. Ex.P.1. 10. After minutely scrutinizing the entire evidence in particular the evidence of the prosecutrix (P.W.1) and Phuibasan (P.W.2) as aiso Sona Ram (P.W.3), It is clear that on 09.06.1992 the prosecutrix was abducted by the accused / appeiiants and appeliant No.1 has foreibly married her against her wishes. 1 find no force in the argument of Shri B.D.Guru, learned counsel for the appellant that as appellants have remained in jail for more t'na" 3 months, therefore, they be released by reducing sentence period which they have already undergone. The manner in which the aforesaid offence has been committed by the appellants, 1 am of the view that no ieniency can be shown. 11. The impugned judgment is in accordance with !aw and the same cannot be interfered with. In the resu!t, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. ~'^^,— Pritinker Diwaker Judge ^ y^