Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J. - (1.) BOTH these appeals [Criminal Appeal No. 09 of 2011 -Rajendra Vs. State of U.P. and Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 2011 -Saheed Vs. State of U.P.] arise out of same judgment, therefore, the same are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) UNDER challenge in the instant criminal appeals is the judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 28, District Barabanki, in Sessions Trial No. 95 of 2005, relating to Case Crime No. 252 of 2004, Police Station Fatehpur, District Barabanki whereby the appellants -Rajendra and Saheed were convicted and following sentences were imposed on them: (a) Under Section 363 IPC -5 Years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/ - with default stipulation of one year's additional imprisonment each. (b) Under Section 366 IPC -5 years' rigorous imprisonment and also with fine of Rs. 1000/ - with default stipulation of one year's additional imprisonment each. (c) Appellant Saheed was also convicted for the offence under Section 376 IPC and was sentenced with 7 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/ - with default stipulation of two years' additional imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. In the instant case one accused Hasnu was also tried alongwith the present two appellants. It has been informed that accused Hasnu has not preferred any appeal against his conviction and he has been released from jail after serving out his entire sentence. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of instant appeals are that the occurrence of this case is alleged to have taken place on 02.12.2004 at about 9.00 p.m. while the FIR of this case was lodged by the complainant on 06.12.2004 wherein he has stated that his minor daughter aged about 12 years (hereinafter referred as victim) has been enticed away by the appellants Saheed, Rajendra and Hasnu. This incident is alleged to have taken place in the night at about 9.00 p.m. when the victim had gone to attend the call of nature. When she did not come back then the complainant started the search of her daughter. He went to several relations and the expected places where the victim could have been found but he failed in his efforts. It was also mentioned in the FIR that one Kamlesh and Rameshwar had seen the victim going alongwith accused persons on the said date and thereafter, the FIR of this case was lodged. During investigation, the victim is alleged to have been recovered on 07.12.2004 at 7.30 p.m. from a place which was very close to the railway station, Fatehpur. The recovery memo is alleged to have been prepared which was proved as Exhibit Ka -2. All the three accused persons were arrested at the time of recovery of the victim and after completing the investigation charge -sheet was filed.
(3.) THE case of the defence of the accused Rajendra and Saheed was that they have been falsely implicated on the behest of Dr. Rahi and Thakur Rajendra Singh. In support of his contention they have examined DW -1 Babu Ram.;