Case: Gabbu Vs. State of M.P

2. As per the prosecution case, complainant Bisan Singh, the husband of prosecutrix, and the prosecutrix were labourers and residing behind of Technical School, Dhar. On the night of 25.7.1992 when the complainant was sleeping in his house, his wife Sita Bai went out of the house to attend the call of nature and there thealong with accused Sher Singh alias Sheru at point of a weapon gave her threats and abducted her against her wishes. The complainant kept on searching his wife and he went to the house of accused Sheru at Brahmakundi and came to know that the accused was missing since last night. He made search at other places also but could not find her. He narrated the story to different persons who told him that the accused had taken away his wife somewhere else. The report was lodged on 26.7.1992 at the Police Station, Dhar, but the same was not registered properly.3. As per the prosecution version, when the prosecutrix went to attend the call of nature she was threatened by theby showing a knife and the other accused put a hand on her mouth and they abducted her. Theaccompanied the prosecutrix and the other accused upto the place called Gunabad. Thereafter, the other accused took the prosecutrix away to Ghata village by truck and thereafter to Bhanwar Kuan, Indore in a motor. Thereafter, she was taken to village Nibhodi where she was allegedly kept in the house of the acquitted accused who was a distant relative of the other accused Sheru. She was sexually exploited and raped by the other accused at that place. The prosecutrix escaped from Nibhodi and reached her maternal uncles place and narrated the incident to him and her husband. A report to the Superintendent of Police regarding this incident was given and the case was registered against the accused persons on 22.10.1992.

Reasoning:
12. We have gone through the statement of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix nowhere alleged that she was abducted with the intention to commit an offence, that she was compelled to marry the accused or any other person or that the accused knew that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or that it was likely that she would be forced or seduced her to illicit intercourse.13. The story unfolded from the evidence led by the prosecution appears to be that thealong with the other accused in the evening went to the house of the prosecutrix and the other accused applied some medicine on her hand so that she might get pregnant after 10 years of marriage. The accused might have persuaded her to accompany them so that they could administer the medicine to her and she being an illiterate lady believing in the superstitions agreed to accompany them. After theleft both of them at village Gunabad, the other accused had other intentions and committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution. That does not ipso facto prove the fact that from the very beginning thehad any intention of inducing the prosecutrix to forcibly marry him or the other accused or she was induced or seduced to illicit intercourse with theor with the other person whose company he left at Gunabad. There is no allegation that from the house of prosecutrix upto Gunabad themade any advances against the prosecutrix so as to show his intention of committing forcible intercourse with her.14. In overall consideration of the material placed on record by the prosecution, we do not find that the prosecution has proved that thehas committed an offence under Section 366, IPC. There is a doubt as to the place of incident and the motive of the accused in taking away the prosecutrix. We find it difficult to believe in the story put up by the prosecutrix that she was forced to leave her place of residence under a threat by showing knife to her.