Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

I have deposed the statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. mark X on the asking of police who asked me to make such statement before the Ld. MM. It is correct that I had not told the Ld. MM who recorded my statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. that I have been terrorized by the police to make statement against the accused persons. I have not made any statement to the Ld. MM that I am making statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. without any fear and pressure and with my free will. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely regarding the aforesaid facts mentioned by the Ld. MM in my statement. Whatever I have deposed in my statement before the Ld. MM was recorded in my U/s 323/341/366/368/363 /328/ 34 IPC statement. My statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. by Ld. MM was recorded after making enquiry from me. It is wrong to suggest that my family members had compromise with the accused persons out of court that is why I am deposing falsely to save them. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons Ajay and Banti today present in court are involved in the incident of kidnapping. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.

25.In Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) Cr.L.J. 1724 (Bom), the High Court of Bombay observed as under :

"The accused were alleged to have kidnapped the girl below 16 years of age from the lawful guardianship of her parents and taken her to another city. The co-accused had simply met the girl and had not instigated her to accompany the accused. Hence, her conviction was set aside. So far accused was concerned, his offence of kidnapping was proved beyond all doubts and he was convicted u/s 363/366 IPC . Accused was however acquitted of the charge of rape u/s 375 IPC as hymen of girl was intact and there were no outward sign of injuries or violence suggesting the sexual intercourse and consequently no rape could be said to have taken place."

It is correct that when police did not turn up accused Banti today present in court forcibly entered in the office of Badarpur owner and dragged me inside the gali. In the gali they put some handkerchief on my nose and mouth and thereafter, I became unconscious."

28.Accordingly, in view of my observation, the prosecution has successfully proved its case for the offence u/s 363 / 34 IPC in light of the judgment 'Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari- State of M.P.- AIR 1991 U/s 323/341/366/368/363 /328/ 34 IPC Supreme Court 1853' (supra) against both accused persons namely Banti and Ajay Kumar as they committed this offence in furtherance of their common intention. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that non identification of the accused persons by the prosecutrix and denial of involvement of accused persons Banti and Ajay Kumar in the cross-examination did not come to rescue of the accused persons precisely for the reasons that PW2 Lalita- prosecutrix appears to have been won over by the accused persons subsequently as she has constantly deposed in the testimony in this court that accused persons namely Banti and Ajay Kumar along with other three accused persons took her after smelling some stupefying object. Thus, I convict accused persons namely Banti and Ajay Kumar for the offence punishable u/s 363/ 34 IPC. So long as the stupefying object is concerned, the prosecution has not proved the substance of intoxication.

31.Careful perusal of the section 34 IPC reveals the following important ingredients :

i. That there must be a criminal act.

U/s 323/341/366/368/363 /328/ 34 IPC ii. The act must have been done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

32.In view of the discussed facts and circumstances of the case, the relevant portion of the statement of prosecutrix is being reproduced verbatim which is as under:-