Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants Rupa Ram and Deepa Ram being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.1.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali in Sessions Case No. 8/1987 whereby, the appellants were convicted and sentences as below:- JUDGEMENT_86_LAWS(RAJ)6_2016_1.html All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) Succinctly stated the facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are noted herein below: The complainant Manroop lodged a written report Ex.P-1 at Police Station Rani on 21.6.1986 alleging inter alia that he along with his wife Dakhu had gone to Village Jawali to perform some ceremonies in relation to marriage of his daughter Mst.Ch. will Jawarilal. His sons Mishrimal and Ganesh and daughter Mst.Ch. were at his home. The accused persons namely, Teja, Pania, Rupa, Bhera and Deepa, the real brother of the first informant and 4-5 unknown persons came to his house in a Jonga vehicle in the night time at 11 O'clock and kidnapped his daughter for the purposes of marrying her off to Rupa Ram against her desire. Mishrimal and Ganesh tried to prevent the kidnapping on which, they were assaulted. On the basis of this report, an F.I.R. No. 32/1986 was registered at the Police Station Rani on 21.6.1986 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 363, 366, 452 and 323 I.P.C. and investigation commenced. The kidnapped girl was recovered from the possession of Rupa Ram and her custody was handed over to her father Manroop. While being recovered, the girl was found to be suffering from numerous injuries. Upon being examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she corroborated the allegations set out in the F.I.R. and further alleged that Roopa Ram subjected her to forcible intercourse against her wishes after kidnapping her. The clothes worn by the prosecutrix and Rupa Ram were seized and forwarded to F.S.L. for analysis. The medical examination of the accused Rupa Ram was conducted and he was found having abrasions on his genitilia. Upon conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused appellants herein and Mangia, Bhagwat Singh, Kana, Rajjak, Jeevraj Singh, Amaria and Teja for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 363, 366, 376 and 452 I.P.C. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused for the above offences. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses in support of its case. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Rupa Ram in his statement disclosed that he had been engaged to prosecutrix. His father requested Manroop to perform the marriage ceremony but Manroop refused. He stated that being enraged by their insistence to get the marriage solemnized, a false case has been foisted upon him. One Bhera Ram was examined in defence. The learned Trial Judge, at the conclusion of the trial gave benefit of doubt to the accused persons other than the appellants herein. The appellants herein were convicted and sentences as above by judgment dated 27.1.1994, being aggrieved whereby, they have preferred the instant appeal.
(3.) Shri S.G. Ojha, learned Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the learned Trial Judge is totally illegal and contrary to the material available on record. He vehemently urged that the entire case as set up by the prosecution is totally false. Deepa Ram is the real brother of the first informant Manroop. Roopa Ram's sister had been married to Deepa Ram and as per the custom of atta satta prevalent in the community, it was agreed that the prosecutrix would be married to Rupa Ram. The first informant tried to wriggle out from this commitment. He contended that when the accused party insisted that he should honour the words given by him, a totally false case has been foisted against them. He further contended that Rupa Ram is having a disability in both his hands and thus, it is impossible to believe that he could subject the prosecutrix to forcible rape against her desire. As per the medical examination, the prosecutrix was major on the date of incident. Thus, as per him the physical relations, if any, established between the prosecutrix and Rupa Ram were consensual. Thus, he urged that the appeal should be accepted and while setting aside the judgment of conviction, the appellants herein deserves to be acquitted of the charges.;