N. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.) THESE aforesaid two criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 10.9.1991, passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareilly in S.T. No. 195 of 1990 connected with S.T. No. 194 of 1990 convicting appellant Ram Kumar under Section 366, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo for four years' R.I. and also convicting accused-appellant Parashu Ram Yadav under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. and sentencing him to four years' R.I. under Section 366, I.P.C. and seven years' R.I. under Section 376, I.P.C.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate. The factual matrix of the case is that on 8.10.1984 complainant Jagdish Prasad Pandey had gone to purchase vegetable and other articles from Bagaha market. He came back at about 7.00 p.m. On his return, his wife told him that their daughter Mithlesh was taken away by Ram Kumar at about 6.30 p.m. Mithlesh was sent along with Ram Kumar on his statement that Parashuram of Bagaha market had come to him and told him that the father of Mithlesh was calling her in the Bagaha market for purchasing some articles. The wife of Jagdish Prasad and mother of the prosecutrix believed on Ram Kumar and permitted Mithlesh to accompany Ram Kumar. On this statement of his wife, Jagdish Prasad started searching his daughter Mithlesh and he came to know from Sunder Lal, and Krishna Bihari that Km. Mithlesh was seen going in the company of Ram Kumar and Parashu Ram and on query, Ram Kumar and Parashu Ram told them that the father of Km. Mithlesh had called her in Bagaha market. Km. Mithlesh was about 13 years at that time. Jagdish Prasad Pandey lodged the F.I.R. on 9.10.1984 at about 9.30 a.m. in P. S. Salon, where a criminal case was registered. The Investigation was entrusted to S.I. Sri Krishna Pandey. During investigation, the Investigating Officer came to know that accused Parashu Ram had taken Km. Mithlesh to Ludhiana. Km. Mithlesh was recovered from the custody of accused Ram Kumar in Ludhiana after a month. After recovery of Km. Mithlesh, she was medically examined in District Hospital, Rae Bareilly by Dr. Usha Singh. At the time of medical examination, no mark of injury, blood stained or semen marks were found. Hymen was not present. According to the opinion of the doctor, the evidence of recent rape was found. The prosecutrix appeared to be about 14-15 years of age as per medical report. In the supplementary report, Dr. Usha Singh has reported that the prosecutrix is below the age of 17 years and the assessment of the age of the prosecutrix has been made on the basis of the X-ray report. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation and after recovery of the prosecutrix submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-persons.
(3.) AFTER committal to the Court of Sessions, the accused Parashu Ram was charged under Sections 366 and 376, I.P.C. and accused Ram Kumar was charged under Section 366, I.P.C. The accused-persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accused Ram Kumar has stated that he was doing labour with complainant Jagdish Prasad and as he has not given his full wages, therefore, he stopped the work and therefore, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused Parashu Ram has also stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. In support of its case, the prosecution examined Jagdish Prasad P.W. 1, Km. Mithlesh P.W. 2, Sunder P.W. 3, Arjun P.W. 4, Dr. Usha Singh P.W. 5 and S.I. Shri Krishna Pandey P.W. 6.;