R.K. Saxena, J. - (1.) The appellant, Jit Singh alias Harjeet Singh, and his wife, Smt. Manjeet Kaur, were tried for committing offences punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and were found guilty. The husband (appellant) was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years, whereas the period for which the wife had remained in jail in this crime was considered as sufficient punishment and, therefore, she was directed to be released The husband was further charged for committing rape on Km. Surender Kaur alias Chhindo, daughter of Mahendra Singh and was convicted under this count also with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years, per judgment and order dated the 13th of December, 1984 passed by Sri Shiv Shanker, the then, IV Additional Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, in sessions Trial No. 134 of 1984.
(2.) The said couple was in occupation of the upper portion of the house of Mahendra Singh, father of the alleged ravished girl, in Mohalla Ashraf Khan within Police Station Kotwali, district Pilibhit. A report was made at this police station by Surendra Singh, brother of the girl on the 27th of March, 1984 at 10.15 P. M. to the effect that the appellant and his wife had kidnapped Km. Chhindo from the lawful guardianship of her father with the intention that she be given in marriage to their near relation. The crime was registered under Sections 363 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code and according to the prosecution the appellant and the girl were found in that very town within the jurisdiction of the same police station on the 24th of March, 1984 at about 5.30 P. M. The appellant was allegedly arrested then and there and after further investigation of useful nature during, the course of which she was medically examined by Lady Dr. G. Rajawat (P.W. 3) on the 24th of March, 1954 at 8.30 P. M., the appellant and his wife were charge-sheeted as a consequence whereof they were committed to the Court of Session, where the trial ended in conviction, as stated at the outset. The correctness and the legality of this decision has been assailed by the husband accused by means of this appeal.
(3.) The judgment under-attack indicates that much reliance has been placed by the Court below on the testimony of Km. Surender Kaur alias Chhindo (P.W. 2) for concluding that she had been kidnapped and raped. Sri S. D. Kautilya, Advocate, has argued the case on behalf of the appellant as amicus curie. Drawing my attention towards the infirmities and absurdities, which appear in the evidence of Km. Chhindo, which have, as a matter of fact, not been properly looked into by the trial Court, he contended that the evidence of Km. Chhindo has to be jettisoned and no implicit reliance can be placed thereon. I find sufficient force in this contention for these reasons.;