Shamsher Bahadur, J.
1. There are two appeals, one of Kishori (Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 1963) and tire other of Sunam Singh Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 1963), which would be disposed of by this judgment. Both Kishori and Sunanv Singh have bean found guilty under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, Hissar. The former has been sentenced to a term of two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and the latter to three years' rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- Two other convicts Amrika Parshad and Rama Nand, who have also been found guilty and sentenced to two years and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively and a fine of Rs. 100/- each have not appealed. Sukhdev Singh was acquitted by the Sessions Judge.
2. Sometime in the month of April, 1962, the wife of Ghasi Ram P.W. 12, who is a labourer employed to the Punjab Textile Mills at Bhiwani was abducted and he filed proceedings under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code against Amrika Parshad, Kishori appellant and Mst. Bhago. This complaint was dismissed in default. Three daughters of Ghasi Ram, Salochna P.W. 1, aged 12, Raw Piari aged 8 and Soma aged 6, were living with him in the quarter of the Mills. On 31st of May, 1962, Ghasi Ram had left for the city at about 7 P.M. in connection with the proceedings which were still going on regarding, the abduction of his wife.
When he returned at about 9.30 P.M. He found the eldest of his three daughters Salochna missing. He was informed by Ram Piari, his second daughter that the convict Amrika Parshad and Kishori appellant had called for her and taken her away though she could not say where she had been taken away. He was unsuccessful In his search for the missing daughter that night but next morning he got information from Ram Adhar P.W. whose shop is on the roadside, that he had sean Salochna and Rama Nand convict going In a rickshaw followed by Amrika Parshad convict and Kishori appellant on bicycles. He went to the police station where, however, his report was not recorded. Ghasi Ram then moved the Superintendent of Police, Hissar, through the application Exhibit PF dated 5th, of June, 1962, scribed by Ram Das, who made Immediate orders that day that the report should be submitted by the S. H. 0. Bhiwani City. A formal first information report was drawn up after the Assistant Sub-inspector had recorded the statement of Ghasi Ram.
A. S. I. Moji Ram P.W. 16 took up the investigation in hand. Sukhdev Singh, brother of Sunam Singh, appellant, was interrogated on 17th of June, 1962, Thereafter, Maujl Ram along with Ghasi Ram went to Sahni Police Station in the district of Aligarh and with the assistance of the local police, the house of Sunam Singh was raided in village Aisi in the presence of local residents, Badan Singh, Anar Singh and Vijairpal Singh P.Ws. Sunam Singh appellant and his wife Rajjo slipped from the house but Salochna was recovered from there. She was all by her self in the house of Sunam Singh at the time of her recovery.
3. Salochna as P.W. 3 has given the detailed story of her removal on false pretext from the house of her father. She knew all the accused persons as they are employees in the Electricity Department at Bhiwani and one of them is in the Textile Mills. According to her, Kishori Lal and Amrika Parshad came to her father's house in his absence between 8 and 9 P.M. on 31st of May 1962. Both of them asked her to accompany them and it was represented that her mother was at Rewari. At first she declined to accede to their request but on being told that her mother had sent for her she assented. Salochna told her sisters to remain in the quarter and she would return soon. After covering some distance, she saw a rickshaw in which Rama Nand convict was sitting. She was asked to take a seat in the rickshaw with him and Amrika Parshad and Kishori followed the rickshaw on their bicycles. The party went to Railway Station Bhiwani where Sunam Singh appellant was present.
After a confabulation between themselves, Klshori and his companions took Salochna to Rewari by train. On reaching Rewari Salochna at once asked where her mother was. Thereafter the intention of the convicts did not remain in any doubt because they threatened to kill her if she tried to raise any cries of alarm. From the Rewari railway station she was taken to Delhi where she was entrusted to Sunam Singh and his three companions Kishori Lal, Amrika Parshad and Rama Nand, directed him to sell her off and it was decided that the miscreants would share the proceeds equally between themselves. So far as Amrika Parshad, Rama Nand and Klshori are concerned, this Is all what they did.
Sunam Singh then took Salochna to Aligarh by bus and from there she was taken to his village Aisi where his wife Rajjo was staying. Salochna was kept there for about three weeks and during this period both Sunam Singh appellant and Rajjo kept a close watch on her at night. Sukhdev Singh accused, brother of Sunam Singh appellant, also reached Aisi after some time. During the time that Salochna was in Aisi she was visited by many persons who came to see her with the object of buying her. She used to overhear the conversations regarding her disposal by sale. Her body was displayed and Sunam Singh and Sukhdev Singh behaved most indecently on occasion by baring her body end removing her clothes for observation of the prospective purchasers. She was it Aisi for two months when the police recovered her from the house of Sunam Singh. According to Salochna, Sunam Singh and Rajjo on hearing of the arrival of the police at Aisi quietly slipped away.
4. After her recovery from Aisi on 13th of August, 1962. Salochna was medically examined by Dr. Malvia at Aligarh on 16th of August 1963. Dr. Miss Saxena had examined her earlier on 14th of August, 1962, at Dufferin Hospital, Aligarh. According to Dr. Saxena, the age of Salochna was between 13 and 14 years. The hymen was found intact and there were no signs of rape.
5. So far as the evidence for the prosecution is concerned, the statements made by Salochna P. W. 3, Ram Adhar P.W. 11 and Ghasi Ram P.W. 12 give the story of her removal from the custody of her guardian on 31st of 'May, 1962. So far as her recovery is concerned. We have the statements of Badan Singh P.W. 8, Vijapal Singh P.W. 9 and Anar Singh P.W. 10. Both Vijaypal Singh and Anar Singh were tendered for cross-examination and nothing serious has been brought out In his evidence to discredit this testimony.
6. The accused have denied their guilt. Amrika Parshad stated that he is a victim of false Implication as a result of party-factions. According to him, he was falsely involved for the abduction of Ghasi Ram's wife and subsequently this false case has been brought against him. Kishorl Lal could say nothing apart from enmity against the prosecution witnesses In his defence. The entire story has been denied, Rama Nand stated that he has bean brought in because of the enmity of the prosecution witnesses with his uncle Amrika Parshad. Sunam Singh said that Ghasi Ram wanted to give evidence in support of his complaint with regard to abduction of his wife and as he declined to do so this case has been brought against him. We are not concerned with the defence taken up by Sukhdev Singh as he has been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.
7. I have gone through the entire evidence and in my opinion there Is no scope for any doubt that the case set out by the prosecution has been amply proved.
8. On behalf of Kishori it has been urged by Mr. Gaur that even if the prosecution story is accepted he had nothing to do after Salochna had been left at the railway station at Delhi with Sunam Singh. I think there is no merit in this submission. The fact of the matter is that Salochna had been enticed away from her lawful guardian and though no force was employed a representation was made that she was wanted by her mother. In view of the recent removal of Salochna's mother from the house for which an unsuccessful complaint had already been lodged Salochna would have been naturally anxious to make an effort to see her and on second thought she assented to accompany the appellant and others. From Bhiwani she was taken to Rewari and Klshori appellant is as much liable as anyone else for her removal. Kishori may not have been with Salochna for a long time but this is not a relevant consideration in determining whether the offence of kidnapping was committed.
9. It is next urged that the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Panal Code has not been established. Now, the essential Ingredient of the offence is that a person who kidnaps or abducts any woman should be for the intent that
she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourses or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse ... it is argued that Salochna was not married to anyone nor was she subjected to sexual intercourse. All that has been established according to the evidence of the prosecution Is that she was to be sold to persons and the proceeds of this transaction were to be divided amongst the kidnappers. It is Important to note the wide amplitude of the words that 8 person should know it to be likely that 'she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse' and 'she will be compelled to marry any person against her will.
When a young girl of 13 is being sent to an unknown place for the purpose of sale, is it an unlikely expectation in the minds of those who are conniving at it that there was a possibility of her being married against her will or being subjected to forcible illicit intercourse? Once she was left in the company of Sunam Singh with the direction that she may be sold and the proceeds shared between the culprits, she was made the subject of all the perils and hazards which are Involved in such a situation and in fact the Instructions of sale themselves involved both the 'possibility and the likelihood that she would be married against her will and become a victim of rape. in my opinion, no umbrage can bet taken under the specious plea that the appellant had only assented to the sale of the girl and nothing else. In my opinion, there is no force in the appeal of Kishori which has therefore to be dismissed. The sentence awarded to him is also maintained.
10. As regards Sunam Singh, various submissions have been made by Mr. Saini, his learned Counsel, it has been contended that he was not present at all when the recovery is said to have been made and he cannot therefore, be held liable under Section 366. Salochna's evidence which I accept unreservedly as a truthful statement of the account, makes it clear that Sunam Singh was the person who was negotiating for the sale of the girl for a period extending two months and he was joined by his wife in this nefarious design. They had got the scent of the police as it was not difficult to get this information in a small village like Aisi and took the opportunity of slipping away from there.
The absence of the appellant from the house when the recovery took place is, therefore, of no consequence nor is there any force in the submission that the house was in joint possession of Sunam Singh and his brothers and support is sought to be lent to this suggestion by the acquittal of Sukhdev Singh. Again, this plea has to be taken in the background of the statement made by Salochna who has involved the appellant in as clear terms as possible. Sunam Singh was no stranger to Salochna as he was residing in Bhiwani.
The evidence of the witnesses for the recovery in village Aisi has been sought to be discredited on the ground that Badan Singh is not a trustworthy witness. In his cross-examination, Badan Singh was asked whether his father gave evidence in a case against Sunam Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Din Dayal. A suggestion is made that Jai Chand, who is a relation of Badan Singh, had been suspected by the police of kidnapping Salochna. The police had received information about Salochna being in Aisi and it is possible that they may have suspected some persons. Badan Singh denounced the suggestion that he had been appearing as a witness for the police and from the questions asked from him it is not possible to deduce that he had any animus against the appellant Sunam Singh. The investigation on the report made by Ghasi Ram can- not be said to disclose any predisposition in favour of the complainant.
According to Ghasi Ram, his complaint was ignored in the first instance and it is well to point out that MauJi Ram A. S. I., did not arrest ail the accused persons till the girl had been recovered. The investigation in fact took considerable time in tracing the culprits. It was only when information was received that Mauji Ram A. S.I. proceeded to Aligarh and from there to Aisi village. I feel not the slightest doubt about the association of Sunam Singh appellant in the crime. The sentence awarded to him cannot be regarded as excessive. This appeal also fails and is dismissed.