SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE, J. - (1.) UNDER challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 17.1.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 7, in Sessions Trial No. 472 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No. 521 of 2009, Police Station Harpalpur, District Hardoi whereby the present appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 364 I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and also with fine of Rs. 1,000/ - each. They were further convicted for the offence under Section 506 (2) I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years. In default of payment of fine, they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) IN the instant case, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 23.3.2008 at 6:00 a.m. and F.I.R. of this case was lodged on 6.8.2009 at 21:15 hours in compliance of the order of the court on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., which was moved on 22.10.2008 by the complainant Ram Niwas, who happens to be the real brother of the victim. According to the version of application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., the case of the prosecution was that appellant no. 2 Mayadevi was legally wedded wife of Ompal (victim). They were blessed with three children. About six years prior to this incident, Mayadevi developed illicit relation with appellant no. 1 Ram Asrey Kachhi. They got their marriage registered before the Marriage Officer, Hardoi on 30.6.2004. Thereafter the frequency of meeting with each other enhanced. Taking notice of this fact, the complainant and his brother Ompal resisted this conduct of the appellants then the appellants said that they have solemnized court marriage and also threatened that in case of any objection, they shall be done to death. On 23.3.2008 at about 6:00 a.m., the appellants along with two unknown persons came to the house of the complainant, stayed there. Thereafter they took Ompal with them. Thereafter whereabouts of Ompal were not known. The complainant raised a suspicion that after his kidnapping, he has been murdered. On inquiry by the appellants, they told him that whatever they have done to Ompal, the same treatment shall be faced by him. The complainant went to lodge the report of this case at the local police station but his report was not registered. Thereafter he moved applications before the higher police authorities but inspite of that no action was taken. Hence, the application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved and under the orders of the court, the case was registered. During investigation, the Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site plan. After completing the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
(3.) THE case of appellant no. 1 Ram Asrey was that appellant Mayadevi had initiated criminal proceedings against the complainant and his brothers in connection with an incident of Maarpeet. In the said case, he was a witness due to which he has been falsely implicated in this case. The case of appellant no. 2 Mayadevi was that because of the enmity of the family property, she has been falsely implicated. She had lodged a case against complainant Ram Niwas in which he was on bail and in order to pressurize the complainant and to create a false defence, this false case has been concocted against him. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW -1 Ram Niwas, PW -2 Constable Suresh Lal Sharma, who has prepared chik report and G.D. of this case. PW -3 Jagdish and PW -4 Vikas, who happens to be first cousins of the complainant. PW -5 S.I. Gorakhnath Shukla, who has investigated this case.;