Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 2-6-1997, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide which it convicted the accused/ appellants and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 each, and in default of payment of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of one month u/s. 451 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 300.00 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for a period of one month each u/s. 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Karamjit Kaur, P.W. 1 was married to Karnail Singh, P.W. 3, complainant on 20-10-1993, Gurmit Kaur other sister of Karamjit Kaur, was married to Surjit Singh, accused No. 1. Gulzar Singh, accused No. 6, is the brother of Surjit Singh, Surjit Singh wanted that Karamjit Kaur be married to Gulzar Singh. Father of Karamjit Kaur did not agree with this proposal, because Gulzar Singh had some mental problem. Hence against the wishes of Surjit Singh, the father of Karamjit Kaur married her on 20-10-1993 with Karnail Singh. On 22-12-1993 at about 12.00 noon, all the accused namely Surjit Singh, Jit Singh, Babli, Bahadur Singh, Darshan Singh and Gulzar Singh came to the house of Karnail Singh in Village Khanpur Gandian in a Matador. Karamjit Kaur, P.W. 1 and her mother-in-law Nand Kaur were present in the house. All the accused forcibly tried to lift Karamjit Kaur. They also gave beatings to Karamjit Kaur. Didar Singh and Mehar Singh, who reside near the house of Karnail Singh came there and tried to stop the accused from forcibly lifting Karamjit Kaur. Despite their intervention, the accused forcibly put Karamjit Kaur in the Matador and brought her to Patiala. She was kept in a house at Patiala for 3-4 hours. Then she was taken to Village Ramgarh Chhanna. She was kept in a house at Ramgarh Chhanna for 3-4 days. During this period, they had been compelling Karamjit Kaur, to marry Gulzar Singh. Gulzar Singh also wanted to have a sexual intercourse with Karamjit Kaur. She was kept in a house at Patiala for 3-4 hours. Then she was taken to Village Ramgarh Chhanna. She was kept in a house at Ramgarh Chhanna for 3-4 days. During this period, they had been compelling Karamjit Kaur, to marry Gulzar Singh. Gulzar Singh also wanted to have a sexual intercourse with Karamjit Kaur. After 3-4days, the accused ran away from the house, and Karamjit Kaur was left alone. Karamjit took a bus, from that Village, and came to the house of her father. Her father took her to Police Station, Sadar, Rajpura where her statement was recorded by the police. 3. At the time when Karamjit Kaur was forcibly taken away by the accused, Karnail Singh, her husband had gone to work in a factory. When he returned from the factory at about 4.00 p.m. her mother Nand Kaur informed him that the accused had forcibly taken away Karamjit Kaur. Then he consulted his father-in-law, because it was a family dispute. On 28-12-1993, he was going to lodge a report to the police. When at the bus stop of Village Ganda Kheri, ASI Salinder Singh, met him and recorded his statement Ex. PA. That statement was sent to the Police Station, on the basis whereof, FIR Ex. PA/1 was recorded. ASI Salinder Singh also visited the place of occurrence and prepared the rough site plan Ex. PC. On 29-12-1993, Karamjit Kaur was produced before him. He sent Karamjit Kaur for medical examination to A. P. Jain Hospital. Dr. Savita Dhawan conducted medicolegal examination of Karamjit Kaur on 29-12-1993, at 4.45 p.m. and found that there were small abrasions on her hands. There was also bruise of the size of IVi inch on left side of her thigh. There were multiple bruises, on anterior aspect of her right leg. All the injuries were simple in nature, caused within a probable duration 6f 4/5 days. After medical examination, the clothes of Karamjit Kaur were handed over to the police, which were taken into possesion, vide recovery memo Ex. PE. Scaled map of the place of occurrence was prepared by Sachde Nand, draftsman. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 4. On their appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. PE. Scaled map of the place of occurrence was prepared by Sachde Nand, draftsman. The accused were arrested. After the completion of investigation, the accused were challaned. 4. On their appearance, in the Court of the Committing Magistrate, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to the accused. After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Session, charge under Ss. 451 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined Karamjit Kaur, P.W. 1, Didar Singh, P.W. 2, Karnail Singh, P.W. 3, Dr. Savita Dhawan, P.W. 4, Lakha Singh, P.W.5, Sachde Nand, draftsman, P.W. 6, Salinder Singh, ASI, P.W. 7 and Jaswinder Singh, P.W. 8. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the prosecution evidence. 6. The statements of the accused u/s. 313, Cr. P.C. were recorded, and they were put all the incriminating circumstances, appearing against them, in the prosecution evidence. They pleaded false implication. Accused Surjit Singh in his statement u/s. 313, Cr. P.C. stated that Karamjit Kaur was married to Gulzar Singh 8/9 years ago. Since the date of marriage Karamjit Kaur and his brother Gulzar Singh were living as husband and wife. Inthe month of September, 1993, Karamjit Kaur had gone to the house of her parents and thereafter, she did not come back. Gulzar Singh had gone to take Karamjit Kaur, but her parents refused to send her with him. Surjit Singh was married to Gurmit Kaur, sister of Karamjit Kaur. Gulzar Singh approached Surjit Singh. Surjit Singh and Gulzar Singh went to the house of their in-laws in October, 1993, but the parents of Karamjit Kaur refused to send her back. The parents of Karamjit Kaur were trying to perform her marriage for the second time, with Karnail Singh of Khanpur Gandian. Thereafter, the Panchayat of Village Chalaila was called. The members of Panchayat accompanied by Surjit Singh and Gulzar Singh went to Jogipur and requested the parents of Karamjit Kaur to send her with him (Gulzar Singh), but they did not accede to their request. After consulting an Advocate, they filed a suit. Subsequently, they came to know that Karamjit Kaur was illegally married to Karnail Singh. Gulzar Singh had also filed a criminal complaint u/s. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. After consulting an Advocate, they filed a suit. Subsequently, they came to know that Karamjit Kaur was illegally married to Karnail Singh. Gulzar Singh had also filed a criminal complaint u/s. 494 of the Indian Penal Code. It was further stated by him that he did not commit any offence. 7. The other accused, in their statements, u/s. 313, Cr. P.C. also denied the allegations of the prosecution, and took up the same plea as was taken up by Surjit Singh. 8. In defence, the accused examined Parveen Kumar, D.W. 1, Hakam Singh, D.W.2, Maharaj Singh, Ahlmad, D.W. 3, Harmesh Singh, D.W. 4 and Gurmit Kaur, D.W. 5. Thereafter, the Public Prosecutor for the State, closed the evidence of the prosecution. 9. After hearing the Public Prosecutor for the State, the Counsel for the accused, and, on going through the evidence, onrecord, the trial Court, convicted and sentenced the accused, as stated hereinbefore. 10. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, the instant appeal, was filed by the accused/appellant. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 12. The Counsel for the appellant, at the very outset, contended that there was unexplained delay of 6 days, in lodging the FIR, which resulted into concoction of story, false implication of the accused, and introduction of false witnesses. Karnail Singh, husband of Karamjit Kaur was not present, inthe house, when she was abducted by the accused. When he returned home in the evening, he was told by his mother Nand Kaur about the incident, who witnessed the occurrence. It was a family matter. In family matters of such a sensitive nature, one person cannot take decision of his own, tomove further, in regard to the lodging of report. He was required to consult the parents of Karamjit Kaur and other relatives, as to what further action, should be taken, against the accused who abducted his wife. He was thus, required to give a cool thought, before lodging a report, Karnail Singh, P.W. 3, in his statement stated that when his mother told him about the occurrence, he consulted his father-in-law, since it was a family dispute, between the relatives as Gurmit Kaur, sister of Karamjit Kaur was married to Surjit Singh accused, brother of Gulzar Singh, accused. It was, under these circumstances, that the delay occurred in lodging the FIR. It was held in Revinder Kumar V/s. State of Punjab, 2002 1 CCC 41 that there can be so many factors, leading to delay, in lodging the First Information Report. It was further held, in the said authority, that rural people, might be ignorant of the need, for informing the police of a crime, without any lapse of time, and it is also not too uncommon among urban people, lack of adequate transport facilities for them, to reach the Police Station; kith and kin of the deceased might take some appreciable time to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind or sedativeness of tem-per for moving to the Police Station; persona who are supposed to give such information themselves, could be so physically impaired, that the police had to reach them, on getting nebulous information, about the incident and there can be no exhaustive catalogue of Instances, which could cause delay, in lodging the First Information Report. In the instant case, the delay occurred on account of the reason, that it was a family dispute, and before lodging the report, the relatives were required to be consulted. Immediate lodging of the report, might have affected the married life of the sister of Karamjit Kaur, with Surjit Singh, one of the accused. The delay thus stood explained. Even otherwise, mere delay in lodging the FIR in itself, is not sufficient, to throw away the case of the prosecution. In the event of delay, the Court is required to go through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and if it finds that the same is cogent, convincing and trustworthy, then delay pales into insignificance. In the instant case, theevidence of Karamjit Kaur, P.W. 1, the victim, Didar Singh, P.W. 2, an eye-witness and Karnail Singh, husband of Karamjit Kaur, on perusal has been found to be cogent, convincing and trustworthy. Accordingly, the delay, if any, in lodging the FIR pales into insignificance. The delay was neither utilized for false implication of the accused nor for introduction of false witnesses, nor for concoction of story. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. Accordingly, the delay, if any, in lodging the FIR pales into insignificance. The delay was neither utilized for false implication of the accused nor for introduction of false witnesses, nor for concoction of story. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, in this regard, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. It was next contended by the Counsel for the appellants, that the statement of Karamjit Kaur was not at all reliable and the trial Court was wrong, in taking into consideration the same, and coming to the conclusion, that the guilt of the accused was proved. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, does not appear to be correct. Karamjit Kaur, P.W. 1 is the victim in this case. She was married to Karnail Singh, P.W. 3 on 20-10-1993, whereas, her elder sister was married to one of the accused namely Surjit Singh. She stated, in her statement, that accused, Surjit Singh wanted the performance of her marriage, with Gulzar Singh. Since, Gulzar Singh was having some mental problem, her father did not agree to the said proposal, and thereafter, she was married to Karnail Singh. She in clear-cut terms, stated that after about IVi year of her marriage, Surjit Singh, Gulzar, Darshan, Bahadar, Jit Singh and Babli, accused came to the house of her husband, in Village Khanpur Gandia, on 22-12-1993 at about 12 noon, in a Matador, when she along with her mother-in-law was present in the house of her husband. She further stated that they tried to lift her. They gave her beatings. Didar Singh and Mehar Singh came there and tried to stop the accused from forcibly lifting her. Despite their intervention, accused forcibly put her, in a Matador and brought her to Patiala. She was kept in a house at Patiala for 3-4 hours. Then she was taken to Village Ramgarh Chhanna. She was kept in ahouse at Ramgarh Chhanna for 3-4 days. During this period, they had been compelliing Karamjit Kaur to perform marriage with Gulzar Singh. Gulzar Singh also wanted to have a sexual intercourse with Karamjit Kaur. After 3-4 days, the accused ran away from the house and Karamjit Kaur was left alone. Karamjit took a bus from that Village and came to the house of her father. Her father took her to Police Station, Sadar, Rajpura where her statement u/s. 161, Cr. Gulzar Singh also wanted to have a sexual intercourse with Karamjit Kaur. After 3-4 days, the accused ran away from the house and Karamjit Kaur was left alone. Karamjit took a bus from that Village and came to the house of her father. Her father took her to Police Station, Sadar, Rajpura where her statement u/s. 161, Cr. P.C. was recorded by the police. During the course of her cross-examination, nothing was brought out, which may be to discredit her evidence. There was no reason whatsoever, for her to make a false statement, against the husband of her elder sister, his brother and his relatives, had she not been abducted by them. Not only this, the statement of Karamjit Kaur, P.W. 1 was duly corroborated by Didar Singh, P.W. 2, living in the neighbourhood, who witnessed the occurrence. Further corroboation to her statement was provided by Karnail Singh, P. W. 3, her husband. Still further corroboration to her statement was provided by Dr. Savita Dhawan, P.W. 4, who medico-legally examined her on 29-12-1993 at 4.40 p.m. and found small abrasions on her hands and of the size of 2/2 inch on left side of her thigh There were multiple bruises on anterior aspect of her right leg. A small tear on posterior commissure was found, which could be % days old injury. These injuries were caused on the person of Karamjit Kaur, when she was forcibly put in the Matador and abducted. The trial Court was right in holding that Karamjit Kaur was abducted forcibly from the house of Karnail Singh with whom she was married, taken away by the accused, in a Matador, and was kept in a house for 3-4 days. The trial Court rightly relied upon the evidence of Karamjit Kaur, P.W. 3, duly corroborated by the evidence of Didar Singh, and the medical evidence, which inspired confidence. The trial was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that the accused committed offences punishable under Ss. 451 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. No doubt, the trial Court, came to the conclusion that from the evidence produced, on record, it was proved that Karamjit Kaur was earlier married to Gulzar Singh and without having taken divorce from him, she was again married to Karnail Singh. 451 and 365 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. No doubt, the trial Court, came to the conclusion that from the evidence produced, on record, it was proved that Karamjit Kaur was earlier married to Gulzar Singh and without having taken divorce from him, she was again married to Karnail Singh. The factum that she was earlier married to Gulzar Singh was also proved from the evidence of Hakam Singh, D. W. 2, Maharaj Singh, D.W. 3 who had brought the copy of Crl. Complaint No. 216/T of 25-7-1994-95 under Ss. 494 and 497 of the Indian Penal Code pending for 10-4-1997, Harmesh Singh, D.W. 4, and Gurmit Kaur, D.W. 5. Even if, Karamjit Kaur, was earlier married to Gulzar Singh, and without taking any divorce, from him, her second marriage was performed with Karnail Singh, in whose house, she started living as his wife, the accused had no right whatsoever, to forcibly take away her in a Matador. They could resort to the legal remedy, against Karamjit Kaur and her second husband and, in fact, they resorted to the same by filing a complaint under Ss. 494 and 497. They had also filed a civil suit against them. By availing of the legal remedy, they could obtain the custody of Karamjit Kaur, but no law permitted them to abduct her. Even, it was the case of the accused that parents of Karamjit Kaur were trying to get her married for the second time, with Karnail Singh of Khanpur Gandian. Thereafter, Panchayat of Village Chalaila was called. Members of Panchayat, accompanied by Surjit Singh and Gulzar Singh went to Jogipur and requested the parents of Karamjit Kaur to send her with him (Gulzar Singh), but they did not accede to their request. In these circumstances, it could be said that even after filing a suit and a criminal complaint, the accused took law into their hands, and abducted Karamjit Kaur, P.W. 3, Karamjit Kaur, P.W. 3 was voluntarily residing in the house of Karnail Singh as his wife. It was not that he had kept her inillegal confinement against her wishes. Even the accused filed an application before the SSP on 27-10-1993, and prayed for the return of Karamjit Kaur. Their request was not accepted by the police. It was not that he had kept her inillegal confinement against her wishes. Even the accused filed an application before the SSP on 27-10-1993, and prayed for the return of Karamjit Kaur. Their request was not accepted by the police. Since, the custody of Karamjit Kaur was not restored to Gulzar Singh, accused, he and his co-accused became desperate, took law into their own hands, and went to the house of Karamjit Kaur where she was residing, knowing fully well that Karnail Singh must have gone for his job, in the factory, and they could easily abduct her (Karamjit Kaur) from his house. In these circumstances, it could not be said that a false story was concocted by the prosecution witnesses, in counter-blast to the suit and complaint already filed by the accused party. The trial Court was right in holding so. 15. The next question that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, an offence punishable u/s. 366 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, from the evidence produced by the prosecution or the trial Court was right in coming to the conclusion, that only an offence punishable u/s. 365 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, as the ingredients for constituting the offence, u/s. 366 of the Indian Penal Code were not fulfilled. In Faiyaz Ahmed V/s. State of Bihar, 1991 1 SCC 117, it was held as under : "Indian Penal Code, Ss. 365, 368 and 366. Woman abducted from her house and taken to various places by accused and confined to a house from where she was recovered by Police. No evidence on record to show that woman was abducted to compel her to either marry against her wish or to submit to sexual intercourse. Accused not liable to be convicted u/s. 366 of the Indian Penal Code but for a lesser offence under Ss. 365 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code." 16. In the aforesaid case also the accused were charged, convicted and sentenced u/s. 366 of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court, however, on perusal of the evidence came to the conclusion that an offence punishable u/s. 366 of the Indian Penal Code was not proved, and accordingly convicted the accused for lesser offences, punishable under Ss. 365 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code. The Apex Court, however, on perusal of the evidence came to the conclusion that an offence punishable u/s. 366 of the Indian Penal Code was not proved, and accordingly convicted the accused for lesser offences, punishable under Ss. 365 and 368 of the Indian Penal Code. The conclusion of the trial Court, to the effect, that an offence u/s. 365 was made out, thus, being correct is endorsed. 17. No other point was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 18. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same do not warrant any interference. The same are liable to be upheld. 19. For the reasons recorded, hereinbefore, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 12-6-1997, are upheld. The bail bonds of the appellants, shall stand cancelled. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, shall take necessary steps, to comply with the judgment of this Court, with due promptitude.