JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal u/Section 374, Criminal Procedure Code has been directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.1983 whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable u/ Sections 364 and 343, Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 82 (18/80), State v. Ram Prasad and 'Ors. , convicted them as such and sentenced each of them to 3 years RI and Rs. 1,000/- fine u/Section and fine of Rs. 1,000/- u/Section 343 Indian Penal Code. Apart from the present appellants the learned trial Judge had convicted Chandra Prakash, Mathura' Prasad and Hpm Raj also of offence u/ Section 343 Indian Penal Code but instead of awarding any kind of sentence to them at that stage of proceedings released them on probation u/ Section 360, Criminal Procedure Code for two years to keep peace and be of good behaviour. They do not appear to have challenged their conviction for offence u/ Section 343 Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that a day or two before June, 20, 1972 PW 2 Devi Shankar Meena of Village Nimoda under Police Station Mangrol (Baran) alongwith PW 3 Hira, Lal, PW 4 Kastoora and one Bhola of his village had gone to Mangrol to purchase building material. They were having three carts. By bullock driven carts it takes about two days to travel the distance between Village Nimoda and Mangrol. As terms could not be settled between them and the sellers, they left Mangrol on 20.6.79 for their village. At about 12.00 or 1.00 p.m. they had reached near the puliya of the Bari Nahar (small bridge over the wide canal) on Baran-Mangrol Road that the appellants riding on the motor- cycles, reached there and stopped the carts of the witnesses. They forcibly picked up PW 2 Devi Shankar from the cart, made him seated on a motor-cycle and thus abducted him. They took him to Ram Prasad's house in Village Borda, removed his clothes, made him lie on hot stone slabs, belaboured him and forced him to write a letter to his son to pay Rs. 30,000/- and some ornaments to the appellants. Finally, they and Chandra Prakash, Mathuralal and Hemraj wrongfully confined him in a room in Ram Prasad's house at Mangrol. The appellants allegedly robbed Devi Shankar of his Rs. 000/- and a gold locket around his neck. 3. 30,000/- and some ornaments to the appellants. Finally, they and Chandra Prakash, Mathuralal and Hemraj wrongfully confined him in a room in Ram Prasad's house at Mangrol. The appellants allegedly robbed Devi Shankar of his Rs. 000/- and a gold locket around his neck. 3. On reaching their Village Namoda on 6.79 PW 3 Hira Lal informed Devi Shankar nephew P'N1 Moti Lal of the abduction of his uncle by the appellants. PW 1 Moti Lal thereupon made a written report Ex.P to Superintendent of Police, Kota and such report having been sent to Police Station Mangrol. Crime No. 49/74 u/ Sections 364, 341, Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. PW 9 Radha Ballabh S.H.O. alongwith PW 5 Surender Singh ASI, PW 8 Azim Head Constable, and PW 12 Bajrang Singh ASI reached the house of Ram Prasad appellant at Mangrol and rescued Devi Shankar from wrongful confinement in a room there. After investigation the appellants and four others were charge- sheeted. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, however, held the present appellants guilty of offences u/Sections 364 and 343 and dealt with them in the manner stated above. 4. None appeared for and on behalf of the appellants despite date, time and place for hearing the appeal having been notified to their Counsel. I, therefore, heard the learned Public Persecutor and examined the record of the lower Court as per decision of the Supreme Court in Bani Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., 1996 (4) S.C.C. 720 =III (1996) CCR 79 (SC) . 5. There are two main sets of witnesses, Durga Shanker himself common to both. The first set of witnesses includes PW 1 Moti Lal, the informant who himself is not the eye witness, in the case, PW 2 Devi Shankar, the victim of the crime, PW 3 Heera Lal and PW 4 Kastoora, the two carts men who had gone to Mangrol with their carts with Devi Shankar. All these witnesses have narrated the above facts in detail and have particularly stated that while they were returning from Mangrol and had reached the puliya of the Bari Nahar, the appellants had reached there and forcibly abducted Devi Shankar. All these witnesses have narrated the above facts in detail and have particularly stated that while they were returning from Mangrol and had reached the puliya of the Bari Nahar, the appellants had reached there and forcibly abducted Devi Shankar. It is no doubt true that these witnesses appear to be close relations of Devi Shankar but it has to be kept in mind in appreciating their testimony that they had accompanied Devi Lal from the village in order to purchase building material from a town or city for him. It is not an uncommon behaviour of villagers that the family members or close friends do accompany another member or friend to make purchases at the occasions of constructing a house or arranging marriages. Therefore, simply because Hira Lal and Kastoora happened to be the nephews of Devi Shankar cannot be a good ground for rejecting their testimonies. I have closely examined their testimonies and feel satisfied that since the same did not suffer from the vice of either self-contradiction or intra- contradiction and was in accord with the natural or normal conducts behaviour of villagers and there were no major and material contradiction with their previous statements u/Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned trial Judge has committed no error in accepting their testimonies. They have stated that the appellants were armed with fire-arms and knives and, therefore, Hira Lal and Kastoora could offer no resistance. That may be true in the facts and circumstances of the case. Subsequent recovery of Devi Shankar from the house of Ram Prasad appellant in Mangrol support their version. I, therefore, agree with the learned trial Judge that Hira Lal and Kastoora are truthful and reliable witnesses. 6. In the memo of appeal the appellants appear to have taken the objection against non- production of Bhola who was also cited as aneye witness in the FIR. It was not necessary for the prosecution to have examined all the witnesses to the incident. Since the version given by PW 2 Devi Shankar, PW 3 Hira Lal and PW 4 Kastoora inspired confidence in the Court multiplicity of evidence was not necessary to prove the same fact. It is the worth and value of the evidence and No. 1ts volume or quantity which is helpful in the adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties to a criminal action. It is the worth and value of the evidence and No. 1ts volume or quantity which is helpful in the adjudication of the rights and liabilities of the parties to a criminal action. Conviction can, therefore, be based on the single testimony if such testimony is of sterling worth. Corroboration to the testimony of an injured person or victim of an of fence is not a legal or statutory requirement in all cases. In the facts and circumstances of this case even the sole testimony of Devi Shankar, in view of his subsequent recovery from the possession of his abductors, was sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of the offence of abduction. Therefore, the non-examination of Bhura it this case does not adversely affect the trustworthy and reliable evidence of other witnesses including Devi Shankar himself on the point. 7. Another objection taken by the appellant is that the FIR was lodged with some delay. The occurrence of abduction of Devi Shankar took place on 20.6.82 but the FIR was lodged on 6.82. As stated above, it took two days for Hira Lal and Kastoora to reach their Village Namoda. Yes, they could have themselves reported the incident to the police but for reasons best known to them they did not. They were not kith and kins of Devi Shankar, though his nephews by family relationship or village relationship. Since the cause of abduction of Devi Shankar, as would be discussed later, was too personal to Devi Shankar and his family and had overtones of a social custom prevalent in the caste of witnesses, they might have not thought it fit. to involve themselves in that dispute. It was, therefore, not unreasonable on their part to think it better to report the incident to PW 1 Moti Lal who was the nephew of Devi Shankar rather than lodge the FIR themselves and PW 1 Moti Lal then lost no time to report the matter to police. The delay in lodging the FIR thus stands, to my mind, satisfactorily explained and does not diminish the very truth in prosecution version. 8. The evidence led by the first set of the prosecution witnesses establishes that the appellants had abducted Devi Shan kar inasmuch as they by force compelled him to go with them from his cart to the house of Ram Prasad appellant. 9. 8. The evidence led by the first set of the prosecution witnesses establishes that the appellants had abducted Devi Shan kar inasmuch as they by force compelled him to go with them from his cart to the house of Ram Prasad appellant. 9. But the facts found proved show that the appellant had abducted Devi Shankar No. 1n order to murder him, as held by the learned trial Judge, but with intent to wrongfully confine him to force their demand for "Jhagra Money" as would appear on later discussion. Therefore, the offence committed by them falls within the purview of Section 365 and not u/Section 364 Indian Penal Code. Since both the offences are of same kind and same series of acts constituted them and the offence u/Section 365 is a minor offence in comparison to that u/Section 364 Indian Penal Code, appellants' conviction from offence u/Section 364 to that u / Section 365 Indian Penal Code may be altered in view of the provisions contained in Sections 222 and 223, Criminal Procedure Code. The appellants are thus found guilty of having committed the offence u/Section 365 Indian Penal Code and are convicted as such. 10. The second set of witnesses comprises of PW 2 Devi Shankar, PW 8 Azim, PW 9 Radha Kishan, Head Constables, PW 10 Radha Ballabh S.H.O. and PW 12 Bajrang Singh A.S.I. Their evidence is relevant to the commission of offence u/Section 343 Indian Penal Code which the appellants have been further proved to have committed. 10. The second set of witnesses comprises of PW 2 Devi Shankar, PW 8 Azim, PW 9 Radha Kishan, Head Constables, PW 10 Radha Ballabh S.H.O. and PW 12 Bajrang Singh A.S.I. Their evidence is relevant to the commission of offence u/Section 343 Indian Penal Code which the appellants have been further proved to have committed. The evidence led by these witnesses is to the effect that after registering the case u/Sections 364, Indian Penal Code the police party headed by PW 10 Radha Ballab S.H.O. had rushed to the house of Ram Prasad appellant in Mangrol and on being given a call Devi Shankar replied that he was locked in a room, that they called the owner of the house whereupon Chandra Prakash appellant, who is the son of Ram Prasad-appellant, appeared on the terrace of the upper storey but on being asked he refused to open the main gate, that on their insistence his mother opened the main gate, that they entered the sehan of the house and called Devi Shankar who replied from the room which was locked from inside, that they asked for the key of the lock but Hem Ram appellant told that the key was with Chandra Prakash, that on being asked Chandra Prakash gave them the key and then the room was unlocked. They further stated that on entering into the room they found Devi Shankar and Hem Ram appellant, that Devi Shankar was having injuries on his head which was bandaged, that they rescused Devi Shankar and arrested the accused. 11. All the witnesses are almost unanimous in the above version. They had no animus to depose falsehood against the appellants. Necessary memos and site maps prepared by the witnesses on the spot exhibit their conduct and support their version. After release Devi Shankar was got examined for his injuries and PW 11 Dr. Tej Karan found following injuries on his person: 1. "Lacerated wound-some antiseptic cream already applied 2" x 2 " x ⅙" on the Rt-side of forehead.". 2. Abrasion 2" x 1" on the scalp over the right parital bone. 3. Burnt-surface over the dorsalsurface of the upper part of Rt. forearm, antiseptic cream was applied over it from hefax. The size of the bum was x 1". 4. Sub conjectural hemorrhage in the Rt-eye. 12. 2. Abrasion 2" x 1" on the scalp over the right parital bone. 3. Burnt-surface over the dorsalsurface of the upper part of Rt. forearm, antiseptic cream was applied over it from hefax. The size of the bum was x 1". 4. Sub conjectural hemorrhage in the Rt-eye. 12. It is thus evident that the medical evidence on record fully corroborates the version of Devi Shankar regarding his beating by the appellants. This part of the prosecution case thus stood proved by cogent and reliable evidence on record. The facts established clearly proved that Devi Shankar was confined in a room for more than three days in such a manner that he was prevented from proceeding beyond the circumscribed limits of the room. His confinement amounted to "wrongful confinement" and the offence committed against him was punishable u/Section 343 Indian Penal Code. 13. No. 1t has been stated by PW 1 Motilal and other witnesses of the first set that the appellants were annoyed with Devi Shankar on his son contractor "Nata" marriage with the daughter of Mathura Lal, who is the father of Ram Prasad applicant. It was further stated that in the caste of the witnesses there was custom that a person may contract Nata marriage with a married woman, in the life time of her husband and without obtaining divorce according to the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, after paying "Jhagra Money" to the aggrieved person or persons who may be her husband and his kith and kins and or her parents. Such a custom is prevalent amongst the members of Meena caste in this State. Not only that the witnesses have proved such a custom prevalent in Meena caste in this State but also that in view of the non- application of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a judicial notice of such custom may also be taken by this Court in order to know the cause behind and the motive of the appellants in committing such sort of crime against Devi Shankar in the case. Anyway, without taking judicial notice of such a custom, I feel satisfied that the appellants were annoyed with Devi Shankar on his permitting his son to contract "Nata" marriage with the sister of Ram Prasad appellant without paying the "Jhagra Money". Anyway, without taking judicial notice of such a custom, I feel satisfied that the appellants were annoyed with Devi Shankar on his permitting his son to contract "Nata" marriage with the sister of Ram Prasad appellant without paying the "Jhagra Money". This explains as to why Devi Shankar was abducted, wrongfully confined and compelled to write a letter to his son to pay Rs. 000/- and ornaments to the appellant. This motive on the part of the appellants fits in the facts and circumstances of the case, hence it matters not that the letter written by Devi Shankar and delivered to the appellants was or was not recovered and seized from their possession during the investigation. 14. The appellants have objected against the absence of corroborative evidence in support of Devi Shankar's statement regarding his taking by the appellants from one place to another and the prosecution not proving their case against the appellants in regard to the commission of other offences the accused were charged with. I am of the opinion that such objection does not affect the probative value of the evidence of the witnesses regarding the commission of offences u/Sections 365 and 343, Indian Penal Code, which are quite independent and separate from the commission of other offences under the Indian Penal Code or any other law. 15. Now a very pertinent question which arises in this case is with regard to sentence. Offence u/Section 365 Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment for seven years and also with fine. the offence of abduction with intent to wrongfully confine a person and thus to deprive him of his liberty is by no means a minor offence. The gravity of such an offence in this case is aggravated when it is noted that Devi Shankar was made to he on hot stone-slabs and was caused injuries and that all was done to compel him to pay "Jhagra Money" alongwith the ornaments with the woman who had contracted "Nata" marriage with his son. Misplaced sympathy shown to the perpetrators of such crime not only encourages the offenders to repeat such offences with more violence and with more fearlessness but also helps shake the faith of law abiding citizens in the rule of law by which people are required to be governed. Misplaced sympathy shown to the perpetrators of such crime not only encourages the offenders to repeat such offences with more violence and with more fearlessness but also helps shake the faith of law abiding citizens in the rule of law by which people are required to be governed. Delay does not consume the crime itself but affects the rights of the criminal as well as the victim to get speedy justice. The State of administration of justice in this State shows that hardly any criminal case is being finally decided before the expiry of a decade or so. If some exceptional case is decided within a year or two by the Trial Court, the usual appeals or revisions to higher Courts take their own time in finally speaking over the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since delay is to be read for the benefit of the accused and not for the victim of the crime committed by him, all sorts of efforts are made to delay the trial and disposal of the criminal cases involving particularly, socio-economic or other crimes affecting the interest of the general public at large. 16. In the instant case I find that Ram Prasad and Ram Chander, the two brothers were the real perpetrators of the crimes against Devi Shankar, their aged father Mathura Lal, their Munna Hem Raj and Ram Prasad's young son Chandra Prakash and other persons found involved in the commission of the crimps in this case were, more or less, labouring under their influence. But it seems to be an icon of administration of law relating to arrest and bails that whereas all the other persons involved in the commission of offences against Devi Shankar were arrested, detained and then released on bail after remaining in custody and detention for some time, the two real perpetrators, Ram Prasad and Ram Charan were not arrested and were admitted to anticipatory bail u/Section 438, Criminal Procedure Code by Addl. Sessions Judge, Baran. The record of proceedings of the Trial Court shows that on many occasions when the witnesses appeared in Court to tender their evidence, either one or the other accused absented or adjournment was sought on their behalf and was granted. Sessions Judge, Baran. The record of proceedings of the Trial Court shows that on many occasions when the witnesses appeared in Court to tender their evidence, either one or the other accused absented or adjournment was sought on their behalf and was granted. Before this Court too none put in appearance on behalf of the appellants, at last on two occasions, when the appeal was called for hearing after duly notifying the date of hearing to their Counsel. The gravity of the offence, the conduct of the appellants and the increasing tendency in convicts of heinous crimes to reap the unmerited fruit of delay dissuade me to show any sympathy or leniency in the matter of sentence at least in the case of Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra appellants. Since the other two appellants appear to have laboured under their influence and also that they have remained in detention for some period in this case, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them may be reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them with increase in the amount of fine. 17. In the result, while altering the conviction and sentence of the appellants from those u/ Sections 364 to 365, Indian Penal Code and also maintaining their conviction and sentence for offence u/ Section 343 Indian Penal Code the appeal of Ram Prasad and Ram Chandra appellants is dismissed. However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to Su (tan and Balya @ Bal Chand appellant for offence u/ Section 365 Indian Penal Code is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by them plus Rs. 5000/- each as fine or in case of default in payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Fine may be paid within three months.The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent only.Appeal partly allowed. *******