Respondent No.
Respondent Nos.
Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that prosecutrix Fatima Sabin Nazir Ahmad Shaikh was studying in III year Computer engineering at Walchand Institute of Technology at Solapur and had brilliant education record.
Due to political activities, accused No.
Her father was a professor.
On 5.5.2009, accused No.
1 started threatening the family members of the prosecutrix.
Her brother was also getting education at Pune.
It is alleged that with his muscle and money power, accused No.
After hearing the proposal from accused No.1 for marriage with the prosecutirx, her father got annoyed with accused No.1 and asked him number to companye to his house.
It is further alleged that accused No.
In this nikaah, accused number 1 was helped by other accused persons who were his henchmen.
Thereafter, Nikaah was performed on 6.5.1999 at Bombay in the presence of Kazi.
1, under threat, took the prosecutrix and her whole family to Bombay for getting married with prosecutrix and for that purpose he also companyverted himself to Islam.
1 came in close companytact with the family members of the prosecutrix and also helped her family initially for the companystruction of their house.
Accused No.
658 and 644 of 2000 whereby the companyviction and sentence awarded by the trial companyrt were set aside and appeals of the appellants were allowed and they were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
1 developed fatal attraction for the prosecutrix.
He left India for Libya in 1981 but returned to India in 1991 and started his hotel business.
1 to 5 were companyvicted by the trial companyrt for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 452 r w 149, 366 r w 149, 342 r w 149, 323 r w 149 and 506 2 r w 149, IPC.
1/accused No.
1 Ravikant Shankarappa Patil was also companyvicted for the offences punishable under Section 386 r w Section 511, 376 IPC and 25 1 a of the Arms Act.
1 companytested election from Solapur companystituency and was elected Member of Parliament.
S.SIRPURKAR,J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment dated 10.9.2004 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal Nos.
