1987 P Cr (PLP)

Abdul Majid complainant, who appeared as P.W.1 renarrated the facts given by him in the F.I.R. Abdul Sattar (P.W.2) supported the statement made by the complainant that he alongwith Muhammad Jamil, after having noticed the accused taking away the girl and on the alarm raised by the girl, that she should be got rid of, had taken the accused into custody, after chase. He also stated that the complainant and Riaz had reached the spot soon after the accused was apprehended. Mst. Tehmina who appeared as P.W.3 stated that the accused had taken her alongwith him on the pretext that her father had sent for her. According to her, when she did not see her father near Chandni Chowk, she refused to accompany the accused further, but the accused threatened her with dire consequences and forcibly took her towards Goal mosque by holding her from arm and on seeing two persons on a scooter, she asked them, `uncles save me from the accused'. On her call, they caught the accused and did not allow him to run away. She stated that her father and her maternal uncle Riaz also came there. Whereafter, they met the Police Officer.

6. The accused during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. In answer to the question, why this case against you'? he stated as follows:‑ "I have been implicated in this case falsely on account of enmity with Faqiria and Dr. Karam Din who are related to Abdul Majid complainant residing at Kamalia. The complainant deprived me from Rs.1,000, one wrist watch (Orient), one new pair of shoes and a Chadar and fabricated this false case against me.' He did not produce any defence.

7. Abdul Majid (P.W.1) during cross‑examination denied the suggestion that the accused was previously known to him. He also denied that Faqiria and Dr. Karam Din, residents of Kamalia, were related to him. He expressed lack of knowledge, if the accused was working in the Power Looms of one Malik Yaqub. The suggestion that he had taken over forcibly rupees one thousand, a woollen Chadar and a wrist watch of the accused, after giving beating. was also denied by him. Abdul Sattar (P.W.2) in cross‑examination stated that he knew that Mst. Tehmina was daughter of the complainant. He, however, conceded that he did not exactly know her name. Mst. Tehmina although admitted in cross‑examination that her father had tutored her statement, but stated emphatically that she had stated in the Court what had happened with her. The S.I. during cross‑examination denied that it had come to his knowledge that the complainant had taken away a sum of rupees one thousand, a wrist watch, a Chadar and a pair of shoes from the accused forcibly. He expressed lack of knowledge that the accused was working in the Power Looms of Malik Yaqub. He denied the suggestion that at the time of arrest the accused bore injuries.

8. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence on record does not disclose ingredients of the offence under, section 364‑A, P.P.C. is without any substance. Mst. Tehmina was stranger; to the appellant. The appellant had taken her away firstly on false pretext, and then he had threatened her with dire consequences and had kept her in his custody while moving under coercion. It was the good luck of the child and her parents that the accused could not achieve further nefarious designs.

9. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was involved falsely in this case by the complainant on accounts of the appellant's differences with the relatives of the complainant at Kamalia, does not find support from the record. The only suggestion put on behalf of the accused during trial to the complainant was that Faqiriai and Dr. Karam Din, residents of Kamalia, were related to him. This suggestion was categorically denied by the complainant. Although the' accused was not bound to prove his innocence, but since that was the case of the appellant, it was not difficult for him to have produced evidence in this regard. He did not even produce his so‑called employer Malik Yaqub to say that he was working with him. The bare suggestion that he has been falsely involved in the case, does not advance his case in any manner

10. The appellant was not known to any of the P.Ws. prior to the day of" occurrence. Abdul Sattar P.W., who had caught the appellant and had got, released the victim, is not even related to the complainant. Although hey admitted that he was a friend of complainant, but it is hardly believable that on account of that, he would have come up with such a false statement

11. There is nothing on record to consider that the conviction recorded by the trial Judge calls for any interference. The same is, therefore, maintained. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the appellant seems to be excessive. The same is reduced to R.I. for ten years. Appellant shall also be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The appeal is dismissed with reduction in sentence. S.A. /M‑182/L Sentence reduced: