S.S.GREWAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, dated 1.5.1992 were by the present appellant was convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under each of these offences he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) IN brief facts of the prosecution case are that the present appellant was a tenant in the house of the mother of Sulochana prosecutrix aged about 14 years. On 16.7.1991, the prosecutrix went to attend the school at about 8 A.M. However, she did not return home after the closure of the school, at about 1 P.M. Sunehri mother of the prosecutrix went to the school, where she was informed that her daughter was taken by her brother from the school on the pretext of illness of her mother. Smt. Sunehri Devi searched for her daughter as well as the appellant whom she suspected to have kidnapped her daughter. As mother of the prosecutrix was proceeding to the police station, she met ASI on the way and on the basis of her written application case was registered against the appellant. On 20.7.1991, on receipt of secret information the police was present near Civil Hospital along with Sunehri Devi and Lok Ram maternal uncle of the prosecutrix when they apprehended the appellant and also recovered the prosecutrix. Both of them were got medically examined. After completion of the investigation the appellant was challenged, tried, convicted and sentenced, as stated earlier. The learned counsel for the parties were heard.
(3.) PROSECUTRIX while appearing as P 13 deposed that at about 10.30 A.M. on 16.7.1991 appellant came and took her from her school situated near Nagori Gate Hisar during the recess, on the pretext that her mother was ill. He took her in a Maruti van to bus stand at Hisar. From there they got a bus and went to Delhi. The appellant was extending threats to her life. From Delhi appellant took her to Saharanpur where she was kept at the house of his aunt for 7/8 days. From Saharanpur prosecutrix was brought by the appellant to Chandigarh. After staying at Chandigarh for about an hour or so prosecutrix was taken back to Hisar in a bus. There the appellant kept the prosecutrix in Gujri Mahal for two days and during this period committed rape on her. Prosecutrix initially stated that the appellant did not commit any rape at Hisar and on clarification by the rape on her in Gujri Mahal, Hisar and at Saharanpur. From the testimony of the prosecutrix herself it is quite evident that during the period the prosecutrix stayed with the appellant, both of them went to several places and travelled by bus and must have passed through crowded places. During the said period the prosecutrix never complained to any individual that she had been kidnapped by the appellant by extending threats to her life. From her evidence, it is quite apparent with the appellant, both of them went to several places and travelled by bus and must have passed through crowded places. During the said period the prosecutrix never complained to any individual that she had been kidnapped by the appellant by extending threats to her life. From her evidence, it is quite apparent that the prosecutrix herself was a consenting party.;