Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Appellant Madan Ravidas in Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 361 of 2003 and appellant Wakil Ravidas in Cr.Appeal(SJ) No. 364 of 2003 have been convicted under Sections 363/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, further they have been convicted under Sections 366A/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and further they have been convicted under Sections 376/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently vide judgment dated 31.5.2003 and order dated 5.6.2003 passed by Sri Yogendra Prasad, the then 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 2000.

17. However, on the basis of evidence on record which has been corroborated by her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also considering the fact that for the purpose of kidnapping, the girl must be below 18 years and in this case girl was below 18 years of age. It appears that she was taken by accused persons from place to place and appellant Madan forcibly married her and as she was below 18 years of age her consent or no consent has no help to the appellants. In such a situation, conviction of the appellants under Section 366A IPC appears to be just and probable. It further appears that learned trial court has also convicted the appellants under Sections 363/34 IPC but once they have been convicted under Section 366A/34 IPC, the conviction under Sections 363/34 IPC becomes redundant. As such, conviction of the appellants under Sections 366A/34 IPC is quite sustainable and hence affirmed.
18. In the result, conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 363 and 376 IPC are set aside and conviction under Section 366A IPC is affirmed.
19. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that appellant Madan Rabidas has remained in custody for more than four years and appellant Wakil Rabidas has remained in custody for about 3 years 10 months and occurrence is of the year 1999, as such lenient Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.361 of 2003 dt.27-03-2018 view may be taken that sentence be reduced to the period already undergone by them in custody.
20. Considering the prosecution case and the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that this is an old case, the period of sentence under Sections 366A/34 IPC is reduced to a sentence for R.I. of five years.
21 . With the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence, both the appeals are dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/-