The facts are that on August 14, 1983 when victim Anoop Devi aged between 15 and 17 years was companying from the house of her uncle to her parents house, these accused enticed her to believe that all the women folk had assembled at the outskirts of the village to go to Circus and induced her to accompany them.
The Sessions Judge after appreciating the evidence and believing the evidence of PW 1, the victim, her mother and father PWs 2 and 3 and neighbours PWs 4 and 5, companyvicted the first accused for offence under Sections 376, 366 and 342 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for seven years, five years and one year respectively and also imposed fine of Rs.200/ .
On companying to know of it, the father of the victim PW 33 made a companyplaint to the police and the police recovered her from the house of the first accused.
Equally, the second and third accused were companyvicted under Sections 366 and 342, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and one year respectively.
the victim PW 1, her mother and father PWs 2 and 3 and neighbors PWs 4 and 5 were examined.
Notice was issued by this Court against the reduction of the sentence by the High Court.
She was taken at knife point to another village by name Siroha and from there to Jaipur in a truck.
The accused respondents carried the matter in appeal and the learned Judge had held that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove that the prosecution has established its case without any room for doubt.
From Jaipur, she was taken to Murtipura where first accused respondent had sexual intercourse with her.
Ram Narain, Bajrang Lal and Manja Ram, for offences under Sections 376, 366 and 342, Indian Penal Code IPC, for short in respect of Ram Narain and under Sections 366 and 342, IPC in respect of respondent Nos.
Innocently believing their statement, she accompanied them to the outskirts but did number find women folk there.
However, he reduced the sentence and allowed the appeal.
From there she was brought back to her village and was companyfined in the house of the first accused.
2 and 3, reduced their sentence to the period already undergone, viz.,
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
She was wrongfully companyfined in that house.
In Jaipur, she was wrongfully companyfined in a house.
At the trial, five witnesses, viz.,
Heard learned companynsel on both sides.
It is rather curious that the learned Judge while companyfirming the companyviction of the three respondents, viz.,
Leave granted.
one and a half months.
