Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) BY this common order, both the appeals viz. (1) Criminal Appeal No. 1000 -SB of 2003 preferred by Mahabir Singh son of Budh Ram and (2) Criminal Appeal No. 1481 -SB of 2003 filed by Vinod son of Ved Parkash shall be decided together.
(2.) APPELLANT Vinod was named as an accused in case FIR No. 68 dated 03.03.2000 registered at Police Station City Jind under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. Appellant Mahabir Singh son of Budh Ram was summoned by the trial Court after Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure was invoked. The Court of Sessions Judge, Jind vide its impugned judgment dated 12th May, 2003 held both the Appellants guilty of offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and vide a separate order dated 14th May, 2003 sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 366 IPC. They were further sentenced under Section 376 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Both the substantive sentences of each accused were ordered to run concurrently. Fir Ex. PG, in the present case, was registered on the basis of a written complaint Ex. PA submitted by Mahabir P.W. 3 son of Gaje Singh, which, when translated into English, reads as under: To The In -charge, Police Post, Rohtak Road, Jind It is submitted that I Mahabir son of Gaje Singh caste Rajput, am a resident of Bhatnagar Colony, Jind and do labour work. I have got four children. My eldest daughter (prosecutrix), who is aged about 15 years, has studied up to ninth class. My son and two other daughters are younger to her. I had gone to do my labour work and my wife along with the children was at home. Vinod son of Ved Parkash caste Ahir resident of Ahirka, at present tenant at Rohtak Road, Jind, used to visit my house for the last two years. On 19th January, 2000 my wife had gone to the city to take medicine. (Prosecutrix) and my youngest daughter were at home. Vinod son of Ved Parkash came to my house and enticed away my daughter (prosecutrix) for performing marriage without my consent. When my wife Geeta returned from the city, my daughter (prosecutrix) was not at home. My wife asked my youngest daughter Preeti, who told that Vinod had taken away (the prosecutrix). Due to fire, feet of my daughter (prosecutrix) were burnt. My wife informed me on telephone at Faridabad and I reached at home in the night. We searched the girl (prosecutrix), but she was not traceable. We checked the cash and ornaments at home and found that one Nath, one gold ring, one necklace, one Mangal Sutar of chandi, two pairs of Pajeb of chandi and one pair of bangles of chandi were missing. These articles along with cash worth Rs. 5,000/ - have been taken away by my daughter (prosecutrix) and Vinod. Till today, to save honour of the family, we have been searching for her. For elopement of my daughter, Tikko daughter of Ved, Satbir nephew of Ved and Toni son of Ved caste Ahir resident of Ahirka, are also responsible. My daughter (prosecutrix) has been taken away by Vinod, alter she was induced. Despite search, my daughter is not traceable, therefore, there being no other option I have reported the matter to the police. Action be taken and my daughter be recovered.
(3.) IN the written complaint Ex. PA, a specific allegation has been leveled that the prosecutrix (name withheld to protect her identity) has been taken away by Appellant Vinod. It is further stated that Tikko daughter of Ved Parkash, his nephew Satbir and his son Toni have played a vital role to facilitate elopement of the prosecutrix.;