The court upheld the conviction for kidnapping and torture, finding that the prosecutrix's testimony and medical evidence sufficiently established the charges against the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellants have called in question judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2004 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu (‘trial Court’ for short) whereby they have been convicted of offences under Sections 366/343/323/34 RPC. Challenge has also been thrown to order dated 22.03.2004 whereby, in proof of offence under Section 366 RPC, the appellants have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- , in proof of offence under section 343 RPC, the appellants have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and, in proof of offence under Section 323 RPC, they have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of a two years.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of this appeal, appellant Sartaj Singh has absconded and he has been proceeded under Section 512 of J&K CrPC. Thus, the present appeal is being decided only to the extent of appellant Saleem Mohd.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 14.06.1996, the prosecutrix boarded a Matador bearing registration No.JK02E-2806 at about 8.30 am for going to GMC Hospital, Jammu where she was posted. It is alleged that, on reaching near Green Belt Park Chowk, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, the Matador in question was stopped by the appellants who placed their Maruti Car bearing registration No. JK023D-5317 in front of the Matador. It is further alleged that the prosecutrix, who was sitting near the widow of the Matador, was dragged out by the appellants forcibly. Thereafter, the prosecutrix was thrown into the car which was driven away by appellant Sartaj Singh while the appellant Saleem Mohd pointed a knife on neck of the prosecutrix. The appellants were also armed with a gun which was lying in the car. It is alleged that the appellants kidnapped the prosecutrix in the car and she was taken to different locations outside the State, like Chandigarh, Solan, Dehradun, Faridabad, Karnal and Delhi. The appellants, during the course of the journey, are alleged to have threatened and tortured the prosecutrix. In fact, there are allegations that the prosecutrix was beaten up by appellant Saleem Mohd resulting in bleeding and tenderness in her nose, as well as injuries to her face and head. It is further alleged that the appellants took the prosecutrix to the house of a Moulvi at Mustafabad, Delhi for the purpose of performing Nikah of prosecutrix with appellant Saleem Mohd. It is alleged that the Moulvi informed father of the prosecutrix, whereafter the police swung into action and the prosecutrix was recovered from the house of Moulvi at Delhi on 17.06.1996 and the appellants were also arrested from there.

4. After registration of FIR No. 236/96 at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, the investigation culminated in filing of a chargesheet against the appellants alleging commission of offences under Sections 341/366/34 RPC.

5. The leaned trial Court, vide its order dated 15.10.1996 framed charges for offences under Sections 341/343/364/323/34 RPC against appellant Saleem Mohd and charges for offences under Sections 341/343/364/366/323/34 RPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act were famed against appellant Sartaj Singh. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, the prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, examined the prosecutrix, PWs Dr. Kahkashan Samad, Adarsh Gupta, Dr. Abdul Samad, Mst. Farzana Begum, Tufel Ahmed, Irshad Ahmed, Satwantar Singh, Surinder Khadyal, Sub Inspector, Kumar Lal, Maulana Mehshar Qazmi, Arjan Sharma, Vivek, Dr. Rakesh Khajuria, Mst. Anita Chopra, ASI and Chunil Lal Baloch, as witnesses. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the appellants under Section 342 of J&K CrPC were recorded and the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, we