R.P.Shukla, J. - (1.) I have beard the learned counsel for the applicant at some length and perused the record.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has pressed this revision on the ground that material evidence of Km. Mariju, who accompanied Km. Meena to the house of the accused, has not been considered as she was not produced by the prosecution. Km. Manju was not the only witness who could unfold the prosecution story. The victim Km. Meena, has unfolded the prosecution story in detail. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also pressed this revision on the ground that no allegation has been made that she was taken by the accused to his house against her will. It has come in evidence that earlier Km. Meena alongwith her younger brothers and sisters used to live in the vicinity of the accused with her parents as tenants of the accused The children of the accused developed intimacy with the victim Km. Meena and other brothers and sisters. On the date of the occurrence, it is said that the accused took Km. Meena alongwith him to his house on the pretext that his children were anxious to see her and she could, be recovered from the house of the accused from inside the room where Km. Meena and the accused were together only on the intervention of the police. Abduction has been defined under Section 362 IPC as whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces; any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. Km. Meena was thus abducted by the accused as he took her on the pretext that his children were anxious to see her and there she was detained and could be recovered only by the police.
(3.) ANOTHER argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the courts below ought not have acted upon the single testimony of Km. Meena. It differs from case to case where single testimony of a witness should or should not be believed. In the instant case, both the courts below have placed reliance on the single testimony of Km. Meena. Learned counsel for the applicant then urged that this is the first offence of the applicant and the sentence of four years awarded to him is too severe and, therefore, the revision be admitted only on the question of sentence. The punishment provided under Section 366 IPC is rigorous imprisonment to the extent of ten years. This may be the first offence of the applicant, but it transpires from the record that the applicant is a married man of 35 years of age having wife and children and, if such a person indulges in such activity, the society shall gravely be in danger and, in my opinion, the sentence awarded to the applicant, considering the attending Circumstances of this case, is not too severe and needs no interference. Thus no case for admission of this revision is made out.;