Amratabai Bagri vs State

A.K. Shrivastava, J.—Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order dated 24.4.2002 passed by learned XIth Additional Sessions Judge Indore, in S.T. No. 388/2001 convicting the appellant Amratabai wife of Poonamchand for the offence punishable u/s 368 IPC and sentencing her to suffer 3 years RI and fine as mentioned in the impugned judgment this appeal has been filed by the said appellant from Jail u/s 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Indeed three persons namely Amratabai (present appellant), Sunil @ Babunath and Kalu @ Gulabsingh were tried. Appellant Amaratabai was charged u/s 368 and 372 IPC while accused Sunil @ Babunath was charged u/s 373 and 376 IPC. The third accused Kalu @ Gulabsingh was charged u/s 373 and 376 IPC. The learned Trial Judge however, convicted the present appellant Amratabai only u/s 368 IPC while accused Sunil @ Babunath has been acquitted from the charges punishable u/s 373 and 376 IPC by extending benefit of doubt to him. The third accused Kalu @ Gulabsingh has been convicted u/s 376 IPC. The instant appeal has been filed by Amratabai from Jail who has been convicted u/s 368 IPC.

The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is absolutely no evidence of the prosecution in order to attract any of the ingredient of Section 368 IPC and if that would be the position, the learned Trial Court has erred in convicting appellant. Hence, it has been prayed that by allowing this appeal, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set-aside.

On the other hand, Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Public Prosecutor argued in support of the impugned judgment and submitted that looking to the unimpeachable testimony of the prosecutrix against the principal accused Kalu @ Gulabsingh u/s 376 IPC and further there is positive evidence against present appellant, the learned Trial Court did not err in passing the impugned judgment and, therefore, this appeal being sans of substance be dismissed.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view, that this appeal deserves o be dismissed.

In order to prove the offence u/s 368 IPC the essential ingredients are:

1) A person has been kidnapped or abducted;

2) the accused was knowing that fact; and

3) the accused must have concealed or confined such person.

If the aforesaid tests are tested upon the ingredients to constitute the offence u/s 366 IPC and tested on the touch stone and anvil of the evidence of the prosecutrix, it would reveal that the appellant who is a lady was well aware of the fact that the prosecutrix has been kidnapped by the principal accused and further the appellant concealed the identity of the prosecutrix. In detail the learnd trial Court has scanned the testimony of the prosecutrix and surrounding circumstances holding the appellant to be guilty of offence u/s 368 IPC.

I have given my anxious and bestowed consideration to the reasonings assigned by learned Trial Court and find them to be cogent as they are based on correct appreciation and marshalling of the evidence and hence, I have no option except to put my stamp of approval to these reasonings and I accordingly do it. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is, hereby, dismissed. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also informed the Court that the appellant has already suffered the entire jail sentence. Be that as it may.