- (1.) JAGAN Nath and Baij Nath appellants stand convicted and sentenced by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala, as under: Name of the Convicted Sentence awarded appellant under Section Jagan Nath (i) 376 IPC R. I. for four years. (ii) 363 read with 368 I. P. C. R. I. for one year. Bail Nath (i) 376 I. P. C. R. I. for four years (ii) 363 I. P. C. R. I. for one year. The sentence awarded to both the appellants were ordered to run concurrently. Their co-accused, namely Kulbhusen, who was also concicted under Section 363, I. P. C. in the same trial was given the benefit of probation under Section 360, Cr. P. C. However, he did not choose to prefer any appeal against his conviction.
(2.) RAJNI daughter of Ram Parkash, prosecutrix was studying in Sanatan Dharam School, Ambala City, In 1979, when she was aged about 13 years, she was alleged to have been kidnapped and taken to Chandigarh by her neighbour Devinder Kumar, who also raped her there. Ram Parkash, father of the pro-secutrix brought that incident to the notice of the police but no action was taken on that report.
(3.) BAIJ Nath appellant was a tenant in a portion of the house owned and occupied by the father of the prosecutrix. Smt. Rajni prosecutrix had been visiting Baij Nath very often in his room and had been indulging in sexual intercourse with him. This process continued for quite a few months. Smt. Rajni prosecutrix even continued visiting Baij Nath appellant after he shifted to another house and had been indulging in sexual intercourse with him. Resultantly, she became pregnant. They tried for the abortion of the conceived child but in vain. Baij Nath is alleged to have suggested to the prosecutrix that he could persuade his brother Jagan Nath appellant, living in Delhi, to marry her, or that in the alternative she could accompany him to his native village Urdia. District Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh. On 5th March, 1980 Baij Nath appellant informed the prosecutrix that his brother Jagan Nath appellant was prepared to marry her. At that time Kulbhushan, the third co-accused of the appellants, was also present and joined in the deliberations.;