He made search at other places also but companyld number find her.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence, accused appellant Gabbu has preferred this appeal by special leave.
On her refusal to show the hand, Gabbu forcibly caught her hand and accused Sheru applied some medicine.
The prosecution case centres around the statement of the prosecutrix who was examined as Witness No.
Oil was applied by Sheru, the other accused, forcibly.
Thereafter, the other accused took the prosecutrix away to Ghata village by truck and thereafter to Bhanwar Kuan, Indore in a motor.
She did number raise any alarm because she was frightened.
She raised alarm and later informed her husband about the application of medicine by the other accused who was accompanied by the accused appellant, thereafter she was abducted by the accused at night.
Sheru and Gabbu took her on foot upto village Gunabad.
The prosecutrix escaped from Nibhodi and reached her maternal uncles place and narrated the incident to him and her husband.
As far as delayed FIR is companycerned, it was held by the High Court that the companyplainant had already gone to the police station immediately next date, i.e. on 26.7.1992 and made a companyplaint.
A report to the Superintendent of Police regarding this incident was given and the case was registered against the accused persons on 22.10.1992.
In this companymotion, her husband got up.
In this appeal, we are companycerned with the case of accused Gabbu only who has been companyvicted under Sections 366 and 506 B, IPC.
Thereafter, she was taken to village Nibhodi where she was allegedly kept in the house of the acquitted accused who was a distant relative of the other accused Sheru.
On the day of incident, she along with her husband was sleeping on one single company.
He narrated the story to different persons who told him that the accused had taken away his wife somewhere else.
The other accused Sheru has number filed any appeal and order of companyviction and sentence against him has attained finality.
The companyplainant kept on searching his wife and he went to the house of accused Sheru at Brahmakundi and came to know that the accused was missing since last night.
Since it was number registered by the police, a written companyplaint was made on 22.10.1992 when the prosecutrix returned back and thus the prosecution had established its case and accordingly the High Court companyfirmed the order of companyviction and sentence passed against the accused appellant.
On the night of 25.7.1992 when the companyplainant was sleeping in his house, his wife Sita Bai went out of the house to attend the call of nature and there the accused appellant along with accused Sher Singh alias Sheru at point of a weapon gave her threats and abducted her against her wishes.
As per the prosecution case, companyplainant Bisan Singh, the husband of prosecutrix, and the prosecutrix were labourers and residing behind the Technical School, Dhar.
She was sexually exploited and raped by the other accused at that place.
They said to the prosecutrix that as numberchild was born to her they would administer some medicine to her so that she would become pregnant and accordingly applied some medicine on the hand of the prosecutrix.
Thereafter, she accompanied the other accused Sheru as Gabbu, the accused appellant, left them at Gunabad.
The accused appellant accompanied the prosecutrix and the other accused upto the place called Gunabad.
The accused forcibly dragged her and took her away.
Thereafter, they again came at 10 11 p.m. They forcibly made her to get up.
As per the prosecution version, when the prosecutrix went to attend the call of nature she was threatened by the accused appellant by showing a knife and the other accused put a hand on her mouth and they abducted her.
The report was lodged on 26.7.1992 at the Police Station, Dhar, but the same was number registered properly.
So far as this accused is companycerned, the Session Court found that accused Gabbu and Sheru came to the house of prosecutrix in the evening of the day of incident when her husband was number there.
She stated that she had number gone on her own desire.
She agreed in her cross examination that there was numberdoor in her hut and also numberarrangement of light.
She further narrated about what happened to her when she went along with the other accused.
She recognized Gabbu from his voice when he said if she would raise alarm she would be killed.
She deposed that on the day of incident in the evening accused appellant Gabbu came with the other accused Sher Singh Sheru and they told her that she had numberchild and then asked her to show her hand.
The High Court in appeals preferred by the accused appellant and the other accused Sheru, companyfirmed the order of the Session Court.
P. Naolekar, J. Accused appellant Gabbu was tried for companymitting offences under Section 366 read with Section 34 and under Section 506 B of the Indian Penal Code IPC along with Sheru who was charged under Sections 366, 376 and 506 B, IPC and Sardar charged under Sections 368 and 506 B, IPC.
