SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 419

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. SAWANT AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
Faiyaz Ahmed and others, Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar, Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.440 of 1978, D/- 10-8-1990.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 365 and 368 – Criminal Trial – Offence of Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person - Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person - This appeal was that since there is no evidence on record. to show that the woman was abducted to compel her either to marry against her wish or to submit to sexual intercourse against her wish, the conviction of accused under S. 366 of the Penal Code was not warranted by law - Trial Court had sentenced accused to four years rigorous imprisonment and accused No. 4 to four years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 read with Section 34 - Held, Court find that the accused were not liable to be convicted for offence under Section 366, I.P.C. but of a lesser offence under Sections 365 and 368, I.P.C. We are also informed that accused No. 1 has undergone rigorous imprisonment for nine months and accused Nos. 2 and 3 have undergone rigorous imprisonment for two months and one and a half months respectively - Accused No. 4 has died during pendency of this appeal - Taking into consideration all facts and circumstances we modify sentences of accused as follows - Accused No. 1 is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for period which he has already undergone and is further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for two months - Accused Nos.2 and 3 are similarly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for period already undergone and to pay each a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for five months - Accused-appellants are given three months time to deposit fine in court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge - Appeal is disposed of.

JUDGMENT

The only point which was urged in support of this appeal was that since there is no evidence on record. to show that the woman Maya Devi was abducted to compel her either to marry against her wish or to submit to sexual intercourse against her wish, the conviction of the accused under S. 366 of the Penal Code was not warranted by law.

2. We, however, find that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that Maya Devi was abducted from her house when accused Nos. 1 and 2 had taken her against her wish and under threat up to Patna Railway Station and accused Nos. 3 and 4 had thereafter carried her similarly under threat from Patna Railway Station to village Ajaipur in Bihar Sharif. She was also confined in a house at Ajaipur village till she was recovered by the police after some hours. That will squarely bring the accused within the clutches of Sections 365 and 368 of LP.C. The offences under these two sections are to offence under lesser offences compared Section 366 and, therefore, on the evidence before the court, they are liable to be convicted for the said offences.

3. The trial Court had sentenced the accused Nos. 1 to 3 to four years rigorous imprisonment and accused No. 4 to four years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 366 read with Section 34. The High Court had reduced the sentences of all the accused to two years rigorous imprisonment and simple imprisonment respectively for accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 4.

4. For the reasons stated earlier, we find that the accused were not liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 366, I.P.C. but of a lesser offence under Sections 365 and 368, I.P.C. We are also informed that accused No. 1 has undergone rigorous imprisonment for nine months and accused Nos. 2 and 3 have undergone rigorous imprisonment for two months and one and a half months respectively. Accused No. 4 has died during the pendency of this appeal.

5. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances we modify the sentences of the accused as follows:-

(a) Accused No. 1 is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period which he has already undergone and is further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for two months.

(b) Accused Nos.2 and 3 are similarly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay each a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for five months.

6. The accused-appellants are given three months time to deposit the fine in the court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in G. R. Case No. 764/ 70 (Trial No. 420/ 71). The fine, if recovered, will be paid to the father of the lady Maya Devi.

7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Order accordingly.

For Citation : AIR 1990 SC 2147

Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top