RANJIT SINGH J - (1.) THROUGH this order, the above-mentioned two connected appeals are being disposed of together. The facts are being taken from Criminal Appeal. No. 346-SB of 1998.
(2.) APPELLANTS , Ilyas, Suledin, Kamal and Barkat are convicted for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 344 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. All four are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years under Section 376 IPC with fine of Rs. 4,000/-; sentence of 3 years and 4 years respectively under Sections 363 and 366 IPC with fine of Rs. 3000/- and 2500/- each and 1-1/2 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 344 IPC. Jaicum and Juhruddin, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 360-SB of 1998, are convicted for offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and are directed to undergo R.I. for 3 and 4 years. under the respective offences coupled with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and 2,500/- respectively. The facts in brief, as revealed from the prosecution story, are that Taj Mohammad resident of village Dihana, submitted a written complaint alleging that his 15 years old daughter Subhani was kidnapped on 18.4.1994 when she had gone to jungle for fetching fodder. At the time of the incident, she was accompanied by some other girls including her sister Farmina. The complainant named all the above six appellants in his written complaint as the persons responsible for abducting his daughter, Subhani. Four of the appellants were from village Dihana whereas appellants Suledin and Illays belonged to village Babupur. It was further disclosed that daughter of the complainant had been put in a car in which Rozdar and Juhruddin were already sitting. Farmina, the second daughter of the complainant had statedly raised alarm and all the girls had also attempted to save Subhani from being kidnapped but they were threatened with gun. The complainant also mentioned that his daughter was kidnapped for doing a wrong act by the abductors. The case under Sections 366, 376 and 506 IPC was accordingly registered. Investigation was set in motion. On 16.5.1994, Subhani was recovered by A.S.I. Phool Singh and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded before the Magistrate. Due to absence of a lady doctor in civil hospital, her medical examination could only be conducted on 17.5.1994. Prosecutrix, in her statement, made an allegation of gang rape by appellants Ilayas, Suledin, Barkat and Kamal. They were accordingly arrested on 16.6.1994. Appellant Juhruddin and Jaicum were arrested by the police on 17.6.1994. The gun was recovered from them, which was taken in possession. Since the prosecutrix had not named Sube Khan, Rohsan, Risalu, Alisher, Ruddar and Asru, they were kept in column No. 2 in the challan, which was submitted before the Court. A consolidated charge was framed against all the appellants under Sections 363, 366, 506 and 34 IPC. A separate charge was framed against Suledin, Ilyas, Barkat and Kamal under Sections 344 and 376 IPC read with Section 34.
(3.) THE appellants, when confronted with incriminating evidence and material, pleaded false implication. In his statement appellant Ilyas said that he is innocent and had not committed any act of rape on Subhani who, according to him, was married to his brother Alisher. In fact, Suledin, Ilyas and Alisher are three brothers and Kamal and Barkat are their nephews being sons of their brother. As per Ilyas, Taj Mohd.-complainant, is a dishonest person and wanted to sell his daughter Subhani to some person by getting her back from the company of her husband Alisher. He claimed that complainant-Taj Mohd. in collusion with the police has foisted this false case against the appellants with aim to get back his daughter. It is alleged that the appellants Jaicum and Jahuruddin were named to take revenge as they had enmity with the complainant. It is further the case of appellants that prosecutrix Subhani has been sold by her father to a person in village Pipake-Patti Sehsola and has given birth to a child. It is also brought out that the prosecutrix had earlier given birth to a son from the loins of Alisher. Her age is stated to be more than 22 years. Blaming the investigating agency, the appellants submit that entire investigation of this case was false and tainted. The other appellants also adopted the same line of defence in their separate statements made before the Court. The appellants examined eight witnesses in their defence and produced on record documents like ration card, copy of birth certificate and voter list in support of their defence case. The trial court after appreciating the evidence, of the respective parties, convicted the appellants, as already noticed and sentenced them to suffer various terms of R.I. as referred to above. The appellants have accordingly filed these appeals.;