Roop Narain and his wife , deceased Shri Bai were living in village Mudiya.
She has further stated that after she reached Jhansi Pyare Lai deserted her and Babu had taken her from there to Sadupura on false pretexts.
When the panchayat talks failed Shri Bai had to be entrusted to the custody of Babu without rousing her suspiction.
1 and his aunts son viz.
After companypletion of investigation Roop Narain, Pyare Lal appellant and Bubu were charged for the respective offences companymitted by them.
Roop Narain himself, as already mentioned, has stated that after the panchayat the appellant took away Shri Bai with him.
Accused Babu was found guilty under various charges including the charge under Section 302 I. P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment besides varying terms of imprisonment for the other offences.
When Shri Bai begged him to release her he refused to do so on the ground that he had purchased her and she must, therefore, lead life with him.
At Sadupura Babu kept Shri Bai in solitary companyfinement in a house for two days.
In spite of the medical treatment Shri Bai died on 19 12 70.
As many as four witnesses viz.
P.C. Her brother P.W. 2 Durga Prasad came and saw her in the hospital and she apprised him of what all had happened.
6, 12 and 13 have failed to state that Shri Bai told them as to how she had companye by her fate, P.W. 8 the village Chowkidar, P.W. 18 Jagdish Narain and P.W. 2 Durga Prasad have clearly stated that Shri Bai informed them as to how her husband and Pyare Lai had played a fraud on her and how the stranger Babu had treated her.
The facts of the case are to the following effect.
While Roop Narain and the appellant were charged under Sections 336 and 368 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and Section 120B I PC.,
Roop Narain and the appellant were companyvicted under Sections 366 and 368 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I for seven years under each companynt, the sentenced to run companycurrently.
P.W. 1 Sone, P.W. 3 Ram Das, P.W. 4Behari and P.W. 14 Chotlce, all residents of Mudiya have deposed that they saw Shri Bai leaving Mudiya on the morning of 1.12.70 in the companypany of Roop Narain and the appellant and another stranger.
He has further stated that Pyare Lal took Shri Bai with him to village Chilia in order to keep there for one month for giving advice to her.
Babu took Shri Bai to Sadupura stating that the appellant and Roop Narain would join them there.
In all her statements, oral as well as written Shri Bai has clearly stated that her husband Roop Narain and his companysin Jeth Pyare Lai were responsible for her being taken to Jhansi.
Therefore, in order to get rid of her she was sold to Babu so that he companyld take her away.
She was admitted in the hospital and treated for her injuries.
Thereafter, Babu locked the door of the house and went away.
To enable Roop Narain to sell Shri Bai, the appellant, who is a resident of village Chilla had brought Babu of village Sadupura to media on the evening of 30 11 1970.
The companyviction of Roop Narain and the appellant under Section 368 read with Section 109 I P.C was set aside but their companyvictions under Section 366 read with Section 109 I.P. C. and the sentence therefore were companyformed.
She has then stated as to how Babu kept her companyfined in the house and violated her person and subsequently caused burn injuries to her and then carried her to a field and left her there.
In so far as the identity of Roop Narain and the appellant is companycerned the witnesses cannot make any mistake because both the persons were known well to them.
the other accused babu was tried for offences under Section 366, 376, 324 and 120B, I.PC.
The post mortem examination revealed that she had died on account of toxaemia and shock resulting from the burn injuries sustained by her.
In the statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.
P.C. the appellant and Babu denied their companyplicity in the offences companyplained of.
1, 3, 4 and 14 as truthful and we find numberjustification whatever to differ with the companycurrent findings of the two companyrts.
Roop Narain admitted that he and Shri Bai were number living happily, that a panchayat was held on 30 11 70, that Shri Bai told the Panchayatdars that she did number want a divorce and instead she wanted that Roop Narain should take her to village Chilla and set up residence there.
When Shri Bai protested that she being a Brahmin cannot live with a Kurmi like Babu he became enraged and beat her and then poured kerosene over her and set fire to her clothes.
Roop Narain was number happy with her and wanted to get rid of her and had actually companyvened a panchayat on the evening of 30.11.70 in order to secure a divorce.
During that period he raped her.
While in the hospital other statement Exhibit Ka I9 was also recorded under Section 161 3 Cr.
While Roop Narain has served out his sentence the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The appellant, however, admitted his relationship with Roop Narain.
Not suspecting anything Shri Bai went along with the appellant and Babu to Jhansi.
Later in the evening she also gave a statement Exhibit Ka 18 to the Tehsildar Magistrate.
She was then taken to the police station at Konch and she gave a report Exhibit Ka 6 .
Though P.Ws.
Admittedly, Shri Bai was the wife of Roop Narain and was living with him in village Mudiya till the morning of 1.12.70.
Pyare Lal the appellant herein were tried along with another accused by name Babu for various offences relating to The abduction, rape and murder of Roop Narains wife,deceased shri bai.
On 6 12 70 some persons happening to pass the field heard her groans and rescued her.
After proceeding some distance Roop Narain turned back saying he would attend to some unfinished work and then join the party but in the meanwhile the others may proceed to Jhansi.
Shri Bai informed them as to how she had been abducted from village Mudiya and brought to Sadupura and as to how she had sustained burns on her body.
After they reached Jhansi the appellant gave the slip and went away leaving Shri Bai alone in the custody of Babu.
Natarajan, J. This appeal by special leave by the appellant Pyare Lal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No 3138 of 1972 companyfirming his companyviction under Section 336 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code for short I.P.C. by the II Temporary Civil Session Judge, Orai and the sentence of seven years R.I. awarded therefor One Roop Narain Accused No.
In the appeals preferred by the three companyvicted accused to the High Court Babu was acquitted of all the charges and set free.
He denied the rest of the prosecution case.
The Sessions Judge and the High Court have accepted the evidence of P.Ws.
Believing the statment, shri Bai left village Mudiya along with her husband as well as the appellant and the stranger Babu.
Their married life was number happy and Roop Narain wanted to get rid of Shri Bai and indeed sought for a divorce at a village panchayat held on 30 11 1970.
