' Shabbir Hussain (26) was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, under section 364-A, P.P.C. For having abducted/kidnapped Mst. Naureen Akhtar aged 9 years on 27-5-1990 at 1-30 p.m.
When she was returning to her house from a shop, where she had gone to purchase sweetmeats.
' Vide judgment, dated 16-1-1991 he was convicted under section 363, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo R.I. For 3 years, plus to pay a fine of Rs,5,000 in default whereof to undergo S.I. For six months.
2. The convict has filed appeal through jail.
3. According to F.I.R. The appellant had caught Mst. Naureen Akhtar aged 9 years, from the street when she was returning home after purchasing toffees from a shop. When the appellant was taking Mst. Naureen Akhtar to his house, she was weeping. Rizwan Ali P.W. Saw the accused taking Mst. Naureen to his house. He informed Nadeem Akhtar, her brother. Both of them i,e. Nadeem Akhtar and Rizwan Ali, knocked at the door of Shabbir Hussain. When he opened the door, Nadeem Akhtar P.W. Inquired from him about Mst. Naureen. Shabbir Hussain told him that she was not there, whereupon Nadeem Akhtar and Rizwan Ali entered his courtyard. They saw a room locked from outside. They heard Mst. Naureen crying inside the room. They broke-open the door and got Mst.
Naureen released. Shabbir Hussain ran away. Many residents of the Mohallah gathered there, hearing the noise.
4. Muhammad Akhtar father of Mst. Naureen had gone to Mohri Shard. When he was told about the occurrence, on return, he lodged F.I.R. Exh.P.B. At Police Station Kharian, which was recorded by Mazhar Hussain, M.H.C. P.W.5 on 27-5-1990 at 7-00 p.m.
5. Javed Iqbal, A.S.I. Who was entrusted the investigation, arrested the accused on 3-6-1990. He got the accused challaned after recording the statements of the witnesses and completion of investigation.
6. Statements of five P.Ws. Were recorded at the trial.
' Mst. Naureen Akhtar aged 9 years while appearing as P.W.1, stated that the accused had, by catching her by the arm, pulled her to his house when she was returning home after purchasing toffees from the shop and locked her in a room. She stated that her brother Nadeem Akhtar and Rizwan Ali had got her released from the room. During cross-examination she stated that neither she knew Mst. Azra Parveen daughter of the accused nor was she her class-fellow. She expressed ignorance that the accused was living in the house with his wife and daughter. She stated that she was left alone in the room which was bolted from outside. According to him Nadeem Akhtar and Rizwan Ali had come there soon after. She stated that she had not raised hue and cry when she was pulled inside the house. She denied the suggestion that she had made a false statement on the asking of his father.
7. Rizwan Ali P.W.2 and Nadeem Akhtar P.W.4 corroborated the facts reported by the complainant in the F.I.R. Both of them denied the suggestion that they had made incorrect statements.
' Rizwan Ali stated during cross-examination that when he had seen the accused taking away Mst.
Naureen he had not immediately tried to apprehend him nor had raised alarm. He stated that he had informed the brother of the abductee first and had accompanied him later to the house of the accused.
' Nadeem Akhtar denied the suggestion during cross-examination, that residents of the Mohallah had not supported their version.
8. Javed lqbal, A.S.I. Who had arrested the accused and got him challaned after completion of investigation, appeared as P.W.3 and gave the details of the investigation conducted by him.
During cross-examination he stated that family of the accused was living in the house but members of his family had gone away since 15 days prior to the occurrence. He stated that he had seen the broken door but had not seen the broken lock. According to him the door was not broken but was damaged. He denied the suggestion that no occurrence had taken place and he had challaned the accused falsely.
' The statements of the remaining P.Ws. Are more or less of a formal nature.
9. The appellant during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case as a whole and pleaded innocence. He did not deny that he was living in the house in Mohallah Nai Arrah, Kharian. He made following statement, while answering allegation that he had abducted Mst. Naureen Akhtar and had locked her in a room of his house:-- "The house of the complainant is situated at the back of my house and in the other street. Naureen Akhtar used to come to my house to play and on that day she had in her routine come to my house to play. I was present in my house. There was nobody else in my house. Naureen Akhtar played in my house for about half an hour on the roof of my house alongwith other children of the Mohallah. Then there was a knock at the outer door and when I opened it, I saw 40-50 persons standing outside who started giving me a beating. Then Naureen Akhtar was also taken out and she alongwith me were taken to the house of Muhammad Akhtar complainant where I was again given a beating. There I was taken to the Baithak of Majid, Local Councillor, who had inimical relations with me. I was again given a beating there. Then alongwith Majid, I was taken to the Police Station."
' He took up the stance that Abdul Majid, Councillor had got him involved in this case due to enmity.
He did not adduce any evidence in defence. However he made statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Therein also he took up the stance which he had pleaded while making statement under section 342, Cr.P.C.
10. I have gone through the evidence with the assistance of learned counsel for the State and have considered the points raised by the appellant in the memo. Of appeal, and the stance taken up by him at the trial.
11. There is nothing on record to hold that the P.Ws. Were annoyed or were inimical to the appellant in any manner. The stance of the appellant that he was involved at the instance of the Councillor, does not find support from anything on record, in that, the appellant failed to bring anything on record to consider that father of the girl, her brother Nadeem Akhtar and Rizwan Ali P.Ws. Had played into the hands of the Councillor? Above all, it is difficult to believe that Mst. Naureen Akhtar who was only 9 years old, would have become a party to make false allegations. The victim was recovered from his (appellant's) house. The A.S.I. Who had investigated the case and visited the spot on the same day, had found the door of the room damaged, from where Mst. Naureen was claimed to have been got released by the P.Ws. After breaking open the door.
'In the circumstances, there appears to be no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
12. The appellant was convicted and sentenced on 16-1-1991. He is in jail since then. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. For 3 years. He had remained in jail for some time during the trial as well.
' In the circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him, is reduced to that of already undergone.
' It appears that the appellant is a man of scanty means. It can be guessed from the fact that he could not engage a counsel for filing appeal. The sentence of fine of Rs,5,000 in the circumstances is reduced to Rs,2,000 (Rs, two thousand only), in default whereof he will suffer R.I. For four months.
Sentence reduced.