SUKHMEL SINGH BHIKA AND MOHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-1980-3-6
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on March 19,1980

Sukhmel Singh Bhika And Mohan Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MAHENDRA BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) THE Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi has convicted the accused -appellant Sukhrnelsingh under Section 366 and 451, IPC. Under the former count, he has been sentenced to two years R I and under the latter count to one year's R.I. Both the sentences have been ordered to run con currently. The other two accused -appellants have been convicted under Section 366, IPC read with Section 34,IPG, and each of them has been sentenced to one year's R I.
(2.) IN brief, the case of the prosecution is that the appellent Sukhmelsingh is a transporter and the other two appellants are his employees They were on visiting terms with Premchand (PW5) father of the prosecutrix Kumari Meena (PW2). It is alleged that Meena was aged about 15 years in the month of July, 1974, and in the night intervening 14/15 7 74, the accused appellants came to the house of Premchand (PW5) He was away as he had come along with his wife and ailing daughter Kanta to Jodhpur for trertment. The accused knocked at the door and they wanted to have the radiator It is alleged that the door was opened by Kumari Meena (PW2) and Mst Teepu, a woman of the age of about 70 years was also present. The three accused took away Kumari Meena by force in a bus,which was standing near the house of Prem Chand and the engine of the bus was on Accused Sukhmelsingh had driven the bus, but hardly the bus had travelled uptb the railway crossing, it had to be stopped because of the barrier. Meena got a chance and she jumped from the bus and got injuries on her knees and she rushed to the house. A cinema bouse was near by, and the second show had ended, and many persons came out of the cinema hall and assembled. No report of the incident was lodged immediately, and it is alleged that this was because Premchand was away to Jodhpur and from Jodhpur he had proceeded to Gujarat. Deodutt (PW 6) the SHO, Bali happened to be in the village Palna on 18 7 74 and came to know about this incident from one Mukhbir and he sent a report to the P S Bali and a case was registered and investigation was sent in motion After investigation a charge sheet was filed. The accused appellants were charged, but they did not plead guilty to the charges. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses. Thereafter the accused were examined under Section 313. Cr P C and the plea of the accused Sukhmelsingh was that Premchand (PW 5) father of Kumari Meena owned a sum of Rs. 1000/ and when he demanded his money, he has concocted a case against him through Kumari Meena, his daughter, He denied that he abducted Kumari Meena, as alleged. He examined few witnesses in defence.
(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge placing reliance on the statement of Kumari Meena, and holding that there appears to be no need of corroboration, convicted and sentenced the accused, as aforesaid.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.