H.S.BHALLA,J - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.9.1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby he convicted the appellant under Sections 363/366/343/346 and 376 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and she was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default thereof, she was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and she was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default thereof, she was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Appellant was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 343 and 346 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. Further, appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 376 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and she was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default thereof, she was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the prosecution case are that accused Shanti Devi and her husband Bansi Lal remained tenants in the house of Bhag Singh for three or four months. During this period, Baldev Parshad accused (Proclaimed offender) used to visit the house of Shanti Devi accused and Bansi Lal. Thereafter, Bansi Lal and Shanti Devi took another house in Gali No. 4, Janak Puri, Ludhiana, yet they remained on visiting terms to the house of Bhag Singh. Sometime, prosecutrix used to go to their house. On 2.6.1992 Shanti Devi accused and her brother Baldev Parshad came to the house of Bhag Singh and continued talking with his daughter and then went away. On 3.6.1992 a masionary work was going on in the house of Bhag Singh. Bhag Singh, in order to purchase material, left the house at 4.00 p.m. and when he returned to his house at 5.00 p.m. he found his daughter missing. He and his wife continued searching for her daughter for two days, i.e., on 3.6.1992 and 4.6.1992, but their all efforts remained futile. On 5.6.1992 Bhag Singh, during search, met one Nirmal Singh of his Mohalla, who informed him that on 3.6.1992 his daughter was going on a Rikshaw with Shanti Devi and Baldev Parshad in Dholewal Chowk, Ludhiana. On receipt of this information, on 5.6.1993 Bhag Singh lodged a report, Ex. PA, with ASI Nishan Singh in Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana. On 6.6.1992 a school certificate, Ex. PB, was produced before ASI Nishan Singh, according to which, the date of birth of prosecutrix was shown to be 5.11.1976. On 11.6.1992 ASI Nishan Singh met Bhag Singh along with other police officials in Partap Chowk, Ludhiana and they went in search of the prosecutrix and when they were proceeding towards Arora Cinema, ASI Nishan Singh received a secret information, on the basis of which, a raid was conducted on a deserted house located in new Kartar Nagar, Ludhiana. Accused Baldev Parshad was found standing in front of the room and on seeing the police party, he sped away. On search of the room, Shanti Devi and accused was found sitting holding the hand of prosecutrix. Memo reading recovery of the prosecutrix was prepared and she was got medico-legally examined and thereafter, custody of the victim was handed over to her father. Shanti Devi was arrested at the spot. Accused Baldev Parshad could not be arrested despite the best efforts made by the police and therefore, he was declared proclaimed offender. After completion of necessary investigation, accused was sent up for trial.
(3.) ACCUSED was charge-sheeted under Sections 363/366/343/346 and 376 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code to which she did not plead guilty and claimed trial.;