- (1.) JUDGMENT :- This appeal has been filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment and order dated 7-5-1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh by which : 1. he acquitted accused Khatu, Nakuda Rakma, Ratna, Bheru and Badri of the charges under Sections 148, 324/149, 323 and 366, IPC; 2. he convicted accused-appellant Maniga for the offence under Section 324/34, IPC and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and also convicted for the offence under Section 323/34, IPC and sentenced to three months RI and further convicted under Section 366, IPC and sentenced to one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month R. I. 3. He also convicted accused appellant Manji for the offence under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to 3 months RI and also convicted under Section 324/34, IPC and sentenced to six months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and further convicted for the offence under Section 366, IPC and sentenced to one year R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo one month R. I. 4. He also convicted accused-appellant Hurji for the offence under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to 6 months R. I. and a fine of Rs. 100/- and also convicted under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to three months RI and further convicted under Section 366, IPC and sentenced to one year RI and a fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo one year RI.
(2.) . It arises in the following circumstances :- On 25-5-1980 at about 4.25 pm, PW3 Partha lodged a report Ex. P/4 before the Police Station Pratapgarh District Chittorgarh stating that on 24-5-1980 in the evening at 7.00 p.m., he alongwith his wife Dulki, PW4, Kamlu, PW9 and Jalki, PW5 were going to Padaliya, and when they reached Dholikhera, accused Harji (present appellant), Bheriya, Badri alongwith 3-4 other persons, whose names he did not know, came there. At that time, Harji, accused-appellant was armed with Kulhari, accused Bheriya was having sword and Badri was having lathi. The accused Harji gave blow with Kulhari on the person of PW3 Partha and asked Partha, PW3 where is his money. Because of the blow by Kulhari, PW3 Partha fell down and, thereafter, Badri gave two lathi blows on the person of PW3 partha. Harji, accused appellant again gave blow by Kulhari and Badri also gave lathi blow on the person of PW3 Partha. Rest of accused persons remained standing as witnesses of the beating. PW9 Kamlu and PW5 Jalki fled a way. Accused persons took away the PW4 Dulki, wife of PW3 Partha with them. Thereafter, the present report has been lodged by PW3 Partha. On this report, police registered the case and started investigation and after usual investigation, submitted challan against accused persons in the Court of Magistrate from where the case was committed to the Court of Session, Pratapgarh. The learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh vide order dated 3-6-1982 framed charges under Sections 148, 324, 323, 366, 392, IPC against the accused Hurji and against rest of the accused, all charges similar to Harji except that of offence under Section 392, IPC were framed. Accused denied charges and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses and statements of accused were recorded under Section 313, Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge vide his judgment and order dated 7-5-1983 acquitted six accused persons of all the charges framed against them and convicted the present accused-appellants and sentenced as stated above. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 7-5-1983 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, the accused-appellants have filed this appeal.
(3.) . In this appeal, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants :- (1) That no case for the offence under Section 366, IPC is made out against the accused-appellants as the prosecution has not been able to establish that the accused-appellants abducted Mst. Dulki, PW4 with the intention to compelling her to marry any person against her will or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit sexual intercourse. (2) That there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, no case against the accused-appellants for any offence is made out. Hence, they be acquitted of the charges framed against them. (3) That if any case is made out against the accused-appellants, they may be released on the sentence already undergone by them. ;