H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - (1.) BOTH these revisions arise out of a common judgment and hence they are being disposed of together.
(2.) APPLICANT Kapildeo was convicted under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment and Kalapraj Singh was convicted under Section 368 IPC and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment. The other seven accused who had been prosecuted along with them were also convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment by the trial court. On appeal their convictions and sentences were set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge of Basti but the convictions and sentences of the applicants were confirmed. Hence this revision. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicants. Applicant Kalapraj Singh who is more than 70 years of age and his wife Depraji were prosecuted on the allegation that they had wrongly confined and concealed Smt Phulmati, a girl below 18 years of age who had been abducted and kept at their house by the other accused during the period 23 -5 -1162 to 28 -5 -1962. Both of them were convicted by the trial court but the appellate court acquitted Dipraji and confirmed the conviction of Kalapraj Singh. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicants has argued that Kalapraj Singh being a Thakur could have no interest either in the woman who was a Harijan girl or in her abductor Ram Nain and as such his conviction for concealing the girl at his house is not sustainable. I find force in this contention. There can be no doubt that the girl was recovered from the house of Kalapraj Singh and his denial of the recovery is false. 6. In order to constitute an offence under Section 368 IPC it must, however, be established that the accused knew that the person concealed had been kidnapped or abducted and that even then he confined or concealed such a person. The fact that Kalapraj Singh knew that Phulmati was an abducted girl has been testified to by Phulmati alone, there being no other evidence on this point. Phulmati has not been held to be an absolutely reliable witness by the lower appellate court and rightly so. Kalapraj Singh being an old man and having no male issue could have no appreciable interest of any kind either in the woman or her abductor. It may be that he did not know that the woman had been kidnapped or abducted and in the ordinary course allowed her and her abductor to take shelter in his house. In any case on the basis of the solitary testimony of the prosecutrix alone it will not be safe, in my opinion, to affirm the conviction of the applicant and he must be given the benefit of doubt. It has also come in evidence that the room from where the girl was recovered had no shutters and opens on an outer verandah. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the girl was concealed within the meaning of the Section 368 IPC. 7. As regards the applicant Kapildeo, I find that the findings of fact given by the courts below that he was the main helper of Ram Nain in kidnapping the girl from a place near Tal Karchaulia and in taking her to various places is based on an appreciation of evidence which is reasonable. Both Ram Nain and Kapildeo are residents of the same village Manjha where the girl was first taken after her abduction. Kapildeo had taken the lease of Karchaulia Tal and his presence at the scene 01 occurrence is highly probable. In the circumstances, I am not prepared to differ with the assessment of evidence made by the courts below regarding the participation of Kapildeo in the alleged crime and hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charge against him. 8. The revision of Kalapraj Singh is allowed and his conviction and sentence are set aside. 9. The medical evidence on the record shows that Phulmati is a girl of about 16 or 17 years of age given to sexual intercourse. It was Ram Nain who has been alleged to have played the principal part in abducting the girl. In the circumstances, in my opinion, a sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment in the case of Kapildeo will meet the ends of justice. 10. The conviction of Kapildeo under Section 366 IPC is maintained but his sentence is reduced from four years to two years' rigorous imprisonment. With this modification in the sentence, Kapildeo's revision is dismissed. He is on bail. His bail -bonds are cancelled. He must surrender and serve out the sentence.;