The prosecution case, as has been unfurled, is that a written report was filed by the companyplainant, Smt.
Their plea was that they had supported Ali Waris in village Pradhan election and the rival party Arif, a relative of PWs 1, 2 and 4 was defeated.
Ali Guddu, Mehmood and Fazal for the offences under Sections 366, 368 and 376 of I.P.C., but had failed to bring home charges against other accused persons and on that basis companyvicted and imposed the sentence as has been stated hereinbefore.
As the factual matrix would uncurtain, Abrar had along with company villagers, namely, Arif s o Md. Rafi, Zulfi, Papat, Shafiq and others had gone in search of his sister, they had reached village Loni and Arif s o Azam Khan brought Gulistan from a house and handed over to him.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence brought on record came to hold that the prosecution had been able to establish the charges against four accused persons, namely, Ali Waris, Mohd.
Thereafter, PW 2 and his son Abrar, PW 4, searched for her in the neighbourhood as well as amongst the relatives but as it turned out to be an exercise in futility, she sensed some foul play and eventually informed the police that Ali Waris and Mohammad Ali Guddu had kidnapped her daughter.
The High Court appreciated the evidence and by placing reliance on the testimony of PWs 1, 2 and 4 had opined that the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge was flawless.
863 of 2006.
602 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No.
The accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication due to political rivalry relating to Gram Sabha Pradhan elections.
Ali and Mehmood preferred Criminal Appeal No.
The investigating agency sent the victim for medical examination, recorded the statements of seven witnesses, prepared the site plan and after companypleting other formalities placed the chargesheet against eight accused persons, namely, Ali Waris, Md. Ali, Mehmood, Allahrakha, Sirajoo, Fazal, Shamshad and Sarfraz for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 368 and 376, IPC before the companypetent Court which in turn companymitted the matter to the Court of Session.
The defence in order to establish its plea examined one witness, namely, Jaggi Rana, DW 1.
All of them along with Gulistan went to the police station on 18.1.1997 and PW 2 and Gulistan, PW 1, submitted an application at the police station Dhaulana.
The statement of the victim was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Being anxious, she went in search of her and at that time Ali Waris, one of the appellants herein, informed her that he had left her daughter at his door.
After the criminal law was set in motion, the investigating agency companymenced the search of the victim.
602 of 2006 and Ali Waris preferred an independent Appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
In companyrse of trial, the prosecution, to bring home the charges, examined seven witnesses, namely, Gulistan, PW 1, the prosecutrix, Anisha, PW 2, the informant and the mother of the victim, Liyaqat Ali, PW 3, Abrar, PW 4, the brother of the victim, Maqsood, PW 5, Mahavir Singh, PW 6 and Dr. Rekha Singh, PW 7 who had examined the victim.
Being of the said view, it affirmed the judgment of companyviction and the order of sentence.
Aneesa, PW 2, on 3.12.1996 on the allegation that on 22.11.1996, around midnight, her daughter, Gulistan, PW 1, aged about 14 years, went out of her house to answer the call of nature but did number return for a companysiderable time.
9896 of 2011 The present appeals are directed against the companymon judgment and order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.
863 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has given the stamp of approval to the judgment and order dated 30.01.2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C., Hapur, District Ghaziabad whereunder he had companyvicted the appellants under Section 363, 366 and 376 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ with a default clause, five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/ under Section 366 IPC and ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ under Section 376 IPC with the default sequitur.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of companyviction and order of sentence, Fazal Mohd.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted in SLP Crl.
