M.M.PUNCHHI,J - (1.) THESE are two Criminal Appeals No. 570-SB of 1987 and 571-SB of 987 against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the two appellants, Ram Bhushan and his wife Sunita, have been convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of six months to each.
(2.) THE way this appeal has been argued by learned counsel. It is not essential to give a complete detail of the case of the prosecution. Yet at the outset, it deserves mentioning that initially the learned Judge had framed charges against the accused, Ram Bhushan for offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (on two counts) and against both the accused for offences under sections 363, 366 (for kidnaping) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter, the accused stood trial for these charges. On 14.7.1987, the date when the judgment was pronounced, an additional and alternative charge under section 366 (for abduction) of the Indian Penal Code was framed it is under the latter charge that conviction of the appellants was recorded whereas they were acquitted of the charges earlier framed. Now to the facts The appellants, husband and wife, lived close to the house of one Balwant Singh at Ludhiana. Jasbir Kaur prosecutrix, was on visiting terms with them. On 18-6-1985, Jasbir Kaur left her house and the appellants took her to Bombay. There she was allegedly made to work as a prostitute and raped by different persons. On 10-8-1985, K. C. Abdul Hameed PW of Bombay was supplied by the appellants Jasbir Kaur for immoral purposes at the rate of Rs. 50/- per hour or Rs. 300/- for the whole night. Jasbir Kaur told her tale of woe to K. C. Abdul Hameed and at her suggestion he took the help of Surjit Singh, who was from Punjab. K. C. Abdul Hameed and Surjit Singh then took the prosecutrix and the accused appellants to An Top Hill Police Station, Bombay, where S.I. Suresh Jagannath Nalawade arrested the appellants for offences under sections 363, 366, 376 and 114 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under sections 3 and 4 of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women Act. The investigation was then taken over by Punjab Police and finally the appellants were sent up for trial.
(3.) THE learned trial Judge as is evident took the view that the evidence on the record had sufficiently proved that both the accused had induced by deceitful means the prosecutrix to go from Ludhiana to Bombay with the intention or knowledge that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse there, and then the charge under section 366 for abducting Jasbir Kaur as framed in the alternative stood proved against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and squally the appellants were acquitted of the other charges.;