JAIN, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 19/12/2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 50/2002 (64/2001) (105/2000), therefore, both are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE trial court has convicted and sentenced the accused- appellants as under:- Accused Under Sections 376 IPc 366 IPc 376 r/w 114 IPc Dinesh Kumar To undergo 5 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo1 month's additional Si To undergo 5 years RI and a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo1 month's additional Si Smt. Saroj To undergo 3 years RI and a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 15 days additional Si Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 6. 7. 1999 PW. 9 Ambika Prasad, father of prosecutrix PW-6 Meenu, lodged a written-report (Exhibit P. 22) at Police Station Chirawa that his daughter Meenu, aged about 13 years, has been missing since the evening of 4th July, 1999. She was riding a cycle and is missing with cycle itself. He searched her in the village and at relations, but could not find her out. Subsequently, Meenu was recovered to PW. 9 Ambika Prasad and thereafter on 7. 7. 1999 another written report (Exhibit P. 17) was lodged at Police Station Chirawa, wherein he stated that his daughter was riding a cycle at about 7. 00 PM on 4. 7. 1999 but she did not return to his house. He made a search of her but of no avail; thereafter he lodged a report in this regard on 6. 7. 1999. Now, when they had reached at crossing of Pilani while searching Meenu, she was seen with Dinesh Sharma S/o Brijmohan Sharma and, soon after seeing them, the accused fled and Meenu came with them. Meenu told them that Dinesh Sharma took her to Pilani where he committed rape with her. On the basis of this report, the police registered F. I. R. No. 186/1999 (Exhibit P. 18) under Sections 363 and 376, IPC. Exhibit P. 19, the site-plan was also prepared. The underwear of prosecutrix Kumari Meenu was seized vide seizure memo (Exhibit P. 21); the accused Dinesh was arrested on 7. 7. 1999 itself vide arrest-memo (Exhibit P. 11 ). Kumari Meenu was medically examined and her injury-report is Exhibit P. 2. After completion of investigation of the case, the police filed a challan against both the accused-appellants. The trial Court framed charge against accused Dinesh under Sections 366 and 376, IPC and against accused Smt. Saroj under Section 376 read with Section 114, IPC. Both the accused denied the charges and claimed trial.
(3.) IN support of the charge, the prosecution examined both, oral and documentary evidence. The statements of accused-persons were recorded under Section 313, Cr. P. C. , wherein accused Dinesh stated that a false case has been registered and the reason behind it is that his mother Vimla Devi had given Rs. 10,000/- to Smt. Leela on credit basis and, on demand of money, quarrel took place number of times in the two families and the present case has been lodged due to that enmity. He further stated that during the period 1. 7. 1999 to 5. 7. 1999 he had gone to Mahuwa to attend his grandmother Omwati, who was ill, and came at Chirawa on 6. 7. 1999. Accused Smt. Saroj, in her statement u/s. 313, Cr. P. C. , stated that the Police Station Pilani and Chirawa have implicated her falsely with the connivance of complainant. She has two school-going children; one daughter aged about 13 years and son aged about 7 years. Apart from her, her brother, sister-in-law ('bhabhi') and children are living in her house. His brother is driver and due to enmity with the police, the present case was falsely lodged against her. Menu never came to her house. The trial Court, after considering all the evidence on the record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as mentioned above. ;