Both the appellants took her to the house of one Ram Swarup and kept her in wrongful companyfinement.
by the first appellant, in the presence of the second appellant, number to leave the place and was further required to marry Madho Ram.
who had seen PW 7 in the companypany of the appellants on the morning of August 17, 1964.
Both the Courts have also accepted the evidence of the Medical Officer, who examined P.W. 7.
On number seeing her sister, PW 7 attempted to get back home, but she was threatened.
In his report dated 25 11 1964, the Chemical Examiner has stated that he detected blood stains and spermatozoa on both the dress materials.
The learned Sessions Judge, when he dispensed with companyroboration, had in his mind the rule of prudence laid down by this Court.
On August 17, 1964, when PW 7 had gone out of her house early morning to answer calls of nature and was returning to her house, she was intercepted by the second appellant and requested to accompany him to a near by temple on the representation that his wife sister of PW 7 was waiting for her therein.
The first appellant has, in addition, been companyvicted for an offence under Section 376 I.P.C and was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with the direction that the sentences imposed on him are to run companycurrently.
PWs 14, 15 and 16 were examined to prove the fact of PW 7 being taken into custody by the police when found in the companypany of the appellants and others on August, 25 1964.
PW 1, as already mentioned, is the father of the girl, PW 7, who is the prosecutrix.
On August 25, 1964, the police took into custody PW 7 when she was attempted to be removed in a car by the appellants and certain others.
Neither PW 1 number PW 7 agreed to this proposal on the ground that there was a large disparity in age The second appellant, however, threatened that in case PW 7 did number marry his elder brother, she would be companypelled by force to marry Madtoo Ram.
The appellants are brothers, Madho Ram being elder.
On this representation, PW 7 accompanied Jagdish to the temple where, however, she did number find her sister.
It is her further evidence that she was taken every day morning to the sugar cane fields and brought back to Ram Swarups house late in the night.
PWs 11 and 13 were examined as witnesses.
The first appellant, Madho Ram.was a widower, aged about 42 years, his wife having died about 20 years ago.
The prosecution examined PWs 1, 7, 11 and 13 to 16.
1, II and 13.
It may be mentioned at this stage that even in the first information report, PW 1 has stated that when he was making enquiries about his daughter, PW 7, on the morning of August 17, 1964, he was informed by .PWs 11 and 13 that they had seen her in the companypany of the appellants near the temple.
When she was taken to the temple, she was threatened by both the appellants and, in particular, the first appellant had threatened her with dire companysequences if she did number marry him.
The evidence of the other witnesses has been properly companysidered by both the Courts and we do number think it necessary to companyer the ground again.
The appellants were arrested two days later and released on bail.
But, on the other hand Madho Ram was in the temple.
According to PW 7, on return to the temple, Jagdish left the place and Madho Ram companymitted rape on her.
The above is the sum and substance of the evidence of PW 7.
The second appellant was always suggesting to his father in law, PW 1, that Surja PW 7, has to be given in marriage to his elder brother, Madho Ram.
11 and 13, is clear from her evidence.
When PW 7 refused to accede to the said request, she was forcibly taken by both the accused out of the temple and when she was so forcibly being taken by both the accused out of the temple and was being led Away, the two appellants sighted PWs IT and 13 companying in the opposite direction and, with a view to avoid them.,
PW 1 Sham Lal had two daughters.
In respect of the offence of rape, the High Court found companyroboration for the evidence of P.W. 7 in the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist regarding her clothes companytaining spermatozoa and human blood.
Madho Ram, who was with her during the night, again companymitted rape on her.
There is numberanswer elicited from the prosecution witnesses that, excepting P. Ws.
The High Court, on the other hand, found companyroboration for the evidence of P.W. 7 regarding abduction in the evidence of P. Ws.
In his report of December 21, 1964 the Serologist has stated that he detected human blood on both these Articles.
Coming to know that her whereabouts were number known, he lodged a companyplaint late in the evening with the police.
PW 7 was again taken back to the temple.
That P.W. 7 would number have been a free agent, when she was seen in the companypany of the appellants by P. Ws.
Along with the appellants, four others were also tried for an offence under Section 366 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and Section 368 I.P.C., but three of them were acquitted by the Trial Court and another, Ram Swarup, was acquitted on appeal by the High Court.
Her dhoti and petticoat were seized by the police and sent to the Chemical Examiner.
His elder daugher, Shushila, was married to the 2nd appellant, Jagdish, about six or seven years prior to the date of occur rence.
The second daughter of PW 1 who is the prosecutrix, is Surja, PW 7, who was aged, on the findings of the Courts, about 19 years at the material time.
This companyviction and sentence have also been companyfirmed by the High Court.
She was kept in the temple till about 1000 P.M. when the second appellant also came.
When PW 7 did number return to her house on the morning of August 17, 1964, PW 1 searched for her and made enquiries of his elder daughter, Shushila the wife of the second appellant regarding the whereabouts of PW 7.
11 and 13, numberody else saw P.W. 7 in the companypany of the appellants except on August 25, 1964, when the police companytacted her.
2180 of 1966 and companyfirming the companyviction of the appellants for an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. as also the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
A. Vaidialingam, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 8 5 1969 of the Allahabad High Court dismissing Criminal Appeal No.
