Pratyush Kumar, J. - (1.) The aforesaid criminal appeals filed on behalf of the accused-appellants are directed against the judgment and order dated 24th November, 2005 passed by Sri J.P.Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.14, Meerut in S.T. No.1371 of 2002 (State vs. Mahendra and another) under sections 363, 376 I.P.C., Police Station Bahasuma, District Meerut, whereby appellant Mahendra has been convicted under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months and appellant Ram Ratan @ Ratan has been convicted under section 366 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment of four months. On behalf of Mahendra, two appeals have been preferred, all the three appeals are directed against the same judgment, delivered in the same sessions trial, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeals may be summarized as under:- That on 27th April, 2002, at 7.45 a.m. Ramesh gave a written report at Police Station Bahasuma stating therein that on 22nd April, 2002, his daughter prosecutrix aged 15 years was taken away by Yad Ram, the incident was seen by Rohtas and Sonu, whereabouts of his daughter were not known. At this check F.I.R. was scribed, Case Crime No.128 of 2002 was registered as Police Station Bahasuma, investigation was entrusted to S.I. A.K.Pal. On 23rd July, 2002 kidnapped girl was recovered. Spot was inspected, witnesses were examined, prosecutrix was medically examined, after procuring attendance of the accused chargesheet was submitted against the present appellants. Both the appellants stood for trial before the Court of Session, they were charged under sections 366, 376 I.P.C which they denied.
(3.) On behalf of the prosecution in order to prove the charges, besides documentary evidence, five witnesses were examined. Formal proof of police papers was dispensed with on behalf of the defence, thereafter statements of the appellants were recorded. On their behalf, in the defence, documentary evidence was filed. No oral evidence was given. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge found the prosecution version trustworthy held appellant Ram Ratan @ Ratan guilty under section 366 I.P.C. and Mahendra under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced as above. Feeling aggrieved these appeals have been filed.;