=========================================================== 1. Arjun Kumar Singh @ Arjun Singh, son of Sri Munarika Singh 2 v. with
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.66 of 2002 =========================================================== 1. Arjun Kumar Singh @ Arjun Singh, son of Sri Munarika Singh 2. Kamdeo Kumar Sao @ Kamdeo Shah, son of Sri Dashrath Shah Both resident of village and post Dadhawa, P.S. and Via – Deo, Distt. Aurangabad. .... .... Appellant/s The State of Bihar Versus with .... .... Respondent/s Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 141 of 2002 =========================================================== Rajeshwar Singh, son of Sri Nageshwar Singh, resident of village and Post Dadhawa, P.S. and via – Deo, Distt. Aurangabad. Versus .... .... Appellant/s The State of Bihar
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 66 of 2002) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ramakant Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Abha Singh, A.P.P. (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 141 of 2002) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. For the State : Mr. Sujeet Kumar Singh, A.P.P. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ramakant Singh, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-12-2013 Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 366(A) and 120(B) Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1996/215 of 2001 by a Judgment and order of conviction dated 11.1.2002. 2. The case of the Prosecution according to the Informant Ram 2 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.66 of 2002 dt.17-12-2013 2 / 5 Naresh Sao is that his daughter had gone to ease herself when Appellant Rajeshwar Singh kidnapped her for the purpose of marriage in which the rest of the Appellants also assisted. He stated that his daughter had taken away around 2,000/- rupees and was wearing jewellery. 3. 4. The Prosecution to prove its case examined nine witnesses. PW-1 Ashok Shah stated that on the date of occurrence his wife told him that his sister i.e. the victim had not returned after easing. His wife and mother had seen a girl going pest them having covered her head in a “Ghoonghat” on account of which they could not recognize her. They then started looking for her. The Appellant Arjun Kumar Singh and Kamdeo Shah were caught hold of, who disclosed that Appellant Rajesh Sah had taken the victim to Ludhiana. Then the present case was instituted after which his sister was brought home. He stated in his cross-examination that after 12 days, his sister had been recovered from Ludhiana and brought back to Deo Police Station. 5. PW-2 is another brother of the victim who merely stated about his sister having gone missing and that he went to inform his father at Aurangabad about this occurrence at which his father started looking for her. 6. PW-3 Panwa Devi is the mother of the victim who stated that on the date of occurrence while she was coming after easing herself along with her daughter-in-law, she found a girl going pest her having 3 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.66 of 2002 dt.17-12-2013 3 / 5 covered with „Ghoonghat‟ on account of which she could not recognize the said girl and just behind her, the Appellant Rajesh was walking. After a while, when they found her daughter missing, they started looking for her. She was cross-examined with regard to the age of the victim and she stated that she was about 15 years of age on the date of occurrence. 7. 8. PW-4 Radha Devi is a tendered witness. PW-5 is victim herself. She stated that on the date of occurrence when she had gone to ease, the Appellants caught hold of her and Appellant Rajesh told her that he would marry her. However, she was not ready but despite the same, she was brought to Aurangabad and taken to Ranchi after meting out threats to her. For two days, she was kept there, in which period he continued to make her agreeable to perform marriage with her. However, when she refused, they came to Dihri and then went to Ludhiana to the brother-in-law of the Appellant Rajeshwar. When she heard the voice of her father, she came out. She was then brought back home where she gave her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. She stated that every day used to go to ease herself along with her mother, but, on that particular day, she had gone alone, due to illness of her mother. Also that she had walked about 8 KMs and reached Anantpur village and, thereafter, boarded the bus which was full of passengers. The Appellants and she had been sitting together after 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.66 of 2002 dt.17-12-2013 4 / 5 purchasing tickets. The cross-examination appears to be only to elicit the truth that in fact it was with consent that she had left with the Appellant. 9. PW-6 Ram Naresh Sah is the Informant who has merely supported the earlier version and that later on his daughter was recovered from Ludhiana from the company of the Appellant Rajeshwar. 10. PW-7 Dr. Abha Chandra is the Doctor who examined the victim and did not find any sign of injury on her person. No definite age could be ascertained in absence of x-ray report, but, she was of the opinion that the girl was major on appearance. 11. PW-8 Brajesh Kumar Pandey was the Judicial Magistrate who examined the recorded statement of the victim. 12. 13. PW-9 Jagarnath Singh is a formal witness. On going through the evidence of witnesses discussed above, it is difficult for me to conclude that it is not a case of consent between the parties. The manner in which the victim had left with the accused persons and stayed with him for next 12 days without raising any alarm, makes it difficult for this Court to maintain that she had been kidnapped against her will. Moreover, the Prosecution has not proved the fact that she had not attained the age of consent. 14. Hence, in my opinion that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 15.
Decision
In such circumstances, the Appeal is allowed. The order of 5 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.66 of 2002 dt.17-12-2013 5 / 5 conviction and sentence dated 11.1.2001 passed against the Appellants in connection with Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1996/215 of 2001 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, is, hereby, set aside. 16. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. (Anjana Prakash, J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 17th December,2013 NAFR/S.Ali