- (1.) O. P. Srivastava, J. This is an appeal from the judgment and order dated 24-7-1987, passed by the XIII Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow, convicting the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and sentencing him to three years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC three years' rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 500 as fine under Section 366 IPC and four years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC. In case of default in payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. The sentences were made to run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that the accused appellant alongwith others kidnapped Km. Tara (PW 3) on 12-8-1986 during the day time when her father Mohd. Nyaz (PW 2) and mother Sabira (PW 1) were away from the house. She was recovered on 22- 8-1986 by the police at about 2. 30 p. m. from Saadatganj bus stand. After completion of the investigation, the accused appellant and four others were charge-sheeted. During trial before the Court of Sessions after commitment of the case, the appellant was charged under the above sections while others namely, Sabira, Wahidan, Phool Jahan and Chhuttan were charged under Sections 363/366 IPC. However, after trial, these four persons were acquitted of the charges. The appellant had denied the charges framed against him. He had pleaded not guilty and had claimed to be tried.
(3.) IN order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Km. Tara (PW 3) who unfolded the prosecution case regarding kidnapping and rape committed on her by the appellant, in all its material details. Sabira (PW 1) and Mohd. Nyaz (PW 2) had stated that their daughter was kidnapped when they were away from the house. The report of this incident was lodged by Sabira (PW 1 ). She proved written report (Ext. Ka-1 ). After recovery of Km. Tara, she was given in the supurdagi of her parents (vide fard Ext. Ka.-2 proved by Sabira (PW 1 ). Smt. Kallo (PW 4) did not support the prosecution case as she stated that Km. Tara had gone to the house of appellant on her free will and that she had seen Km. Tara at the house of the appellant. Sita Ram (PW 5) is the recovery witness of Km. Tara. He did not support the prosecution case while in the witness box but in the cross-examination, he admitted his signature on the fard recovery. Ram Singh (PW 7) is also witness of recovery. He has stated that Km. Tara was recovered from Saadatganj bus stand alongwith the appellant. He admitted his signature on the fard recovery (Ext. Ka-3 ). Dr. Rama Sahai (PW 8) besides proving the report of Radiologist had also stated the age of Km. Tara as between 15-16 years. SI Gaurishankar (PW 6) is the Investigating Officer. He besides proving the charge sheet and site plan had also proved the recovery of the prosecutrix from Saadatganj bus stand in the presence of the witnesses on 28-8-1986. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant denied the prosecution case against him and alleged his implication due to enmity.;