Pappu Ram Son of Sri Jagdish Ram, Resident of Mohalla Sardar Chowk, Hazaribagh, P.S v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1388 of 2006 [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 19.09.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Sessions Trial Case No.206 of 2003] Pappu Ram Son of Sri Jagdish Ram, Resident of Mohalla Sardar Chowk, Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA …… For the Appellant For the State For the Informant : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Adv. : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl. P.P. : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Adv. …… C.A.V. on 22.10.2024 Pronounced on 29.10.2024 1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. Nawin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant. 2. This instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.09.2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. Case No.206 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 1 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of three years and fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I. of four years along with fine of Rs.2000/- for the above offences respectively with default stipulation. 3. The factual matrix as depicted in the F.I.R. lodged by one Birendra Prasad Verma is that in the intervening night of 15/16.07.2002 at about 9 hours, all the family members after taking dinner were under profound sleep. It is alleged that in one room informant’s four daughters and granddaughters were sleeping and in another room informant along with his grandson and wife were sleeping. It is further alleged that at about 02:00 a.m., one of the daughters Sindhu Kumari @ Tinu aged about 14 years got up to discharge nature’s call and went towards bathroom but did not return till sometime then her elder sister went to see her but did not found Sindhu Kumari in the toilet then she informed to all family members. The informant has raised suspicion against the present appellant for enticing/taking away the minor daughter of the informant in pretext of performing marriage with her as they were under talking terms with each other. The informant also went to the house of Pappu Ram who was not present in his Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 2 house since previous night. It is alleged that the victim girl was studying in Class IX. On the basis of above information F.I.R. was instituted as Sadar Hazaribagh P.S. Case No.279 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the
Legal Reasoning
I.P.C., after institution of First Information Report, the victim girl returned to her home and her statement was recorded. She was also physically examined by doctor and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the sole accused (present appellant). 4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No.206 of 2003 was registered, charges were framed against the sole accused under Section 363 and 366 of the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to him for which he denied and claimed to be tried. 5. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is thoroughly innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case without any fault only on the basis of suspicion. Admittedly, there was love affair between victim Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 3 girl and the appellant who was major aged about 18 years on the date of occurrence as per medical examination report of the victim. The victim girl proceeded from her house and returned to her home on her own accord on the same day and she was never in possession of the appellant at any point of time. Therefore, story of kidnapping of the victim becomes false. It is further submitted that the father of victim girl was not in favour of the love affair between appellant and his daughter, therefore, he has lodged this false case projecting his daughter as a victim and she, under influence of her father, has narrated a false story against the petitioner in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that after lodging this case and when the victim girl had attained clear cut age of majority, the appellant and the alleged victim girl have solemnized their marriage and out of their wedlock two children have been begotten. One son is at present aged about 13 years and daughter is aged about 9 years. Both are discharging their conjugal life since long in a peaceful manner and there is no grievance of any kind of the informant who also participated in the said marriage. Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 4 Therefore, appellant deserves to be acquitted from the charges leveled against him. 7. On the other hand, the informant Birendra Prasad Verma, father of the victim girl, has also filed a counter affidavit in support of assertion of the appellant regarding marriage with the victim girl after attaining the age of majority with the appellant and they are discharging their conjugal rights and duties having children out of their wedlock. He also states that the criminal case was lodged under confusion and misconception on the basis of suspicion due to love affair between appellant and his daughter. 8. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant by submitting that on the basis of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the victim girl was found below 18 years on the date of occurrence. She was school going girl and her date of birth in the school certificate (Ex.2) is 20.01.1988 as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference even in the chain of circumstances Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 5 as pleaded by the informant and appellant and thus, this appeal is fit to be dismissed. 9. It appears that in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the present appellant altogether seven witnesses were examined out of them P.W.-2 is the victim girl who was examined on 18.06.2005 disclosing her age as 17 years. According to her evidence at about 02:00 a.m. in the night, she woke up for discharging nature’s call and came to her courtyard meanwhile Pappu Ram (appellant) came there and put something on her nose in a cloth due to which she became faint and in the next day morning, she found herself in a hut near the lake. She has further alleged that the appellant forcibly got her photograph with him with the assistance by a photographer and was threatened to solemnize marriage with her. Later on, she came to know that her father had lodged a case at police station, hence, Pappu Ram left her near the S.S.P. residence and went away then she saw her father was searching her and returned to home with her father. She has clearly stated that nothing else was done by the accused with her. Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 6 In her cross-examination, she was shown a photograph by the accused in which there was a photo of her father, mother, younger sister along with the accused. Some letters written by the victim girl were also shown to her but she denied the same showing her shame attitude. She has also stated in her statement before the Investigating Officer about the love affair with the accused Pappu Ram. She has not stated about any threatening given to her by the accused. The manner of occurrence as disclosed by her also falsifies the story of kidnapping in as much as the victim went to her courtyard which is enclosed by boundary wall and gate is also fixed which was closed, but she did not raise any alarm although her other sisters also woke up. How she was managed to brought outside the courtyard, has not been stated by her. She has denied the suggestion of defence that she belongs to upper caste and the accused belong to lower caste, hence, her father was not desiring to solemnize her marriage with the accused and implicated in this false case. P.W.-1 Birendra Prasad Verma is the father of the victim girl. He has proved the contents of his fardbayan and stated that he has lodged the case against Pappu Ram on the Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 7 basis of suspicion because he frequently used to talk her daughter and was compelling to solemnize marriage with him. His daughter was recovered on the same day and she disclosed that Pappu Ram has kidnapped her for the purpose of solemnizing marriage with her but due to institution of F.I.R. he left her near the residence of Superintendent of Police. P.W.-3 Meera Devi is the sister of the victim girl and deposed in the same line as her father. P.W.-6 Usha Devi is the mother of the victim who has consistently proved that the victim was missing from the date of incident and they were suspecting against Pappu Ram who was in talking terms with the victim girl and compelling her to marry with him. The victim girl was recovered on the same day. In their cross-examination, above witnesses have clearly admitted that they have not seen the victim and the accused together on the date of occurrence. P.W.-4 Dr. Sandhya Topno has medically examined the victim girl and found no mark of sexual assault and age of the victim after radiological examination was assessed to be Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 8 18 years. P.W.-5 A.S.I. Santosh Kumar is the Investigating Officer of this case. According to his evidence on 16.07.2002 at about 16 hours, a message was received at the police station that from Zarina Villa, Dipugarha, a boy has been eloped with a girl and after making Station Diary (SD) entry, he went for verification of the above information. He reached at the place of occurrence at about 16:30 hours where he recorded fardbayan of Birendra Prasad Verma. Accordingly, formal F.I.R. was registered as Sadar P.S. Case No.279 of 2002 under Section 363 and 366A of the I.P.C. He visited the place of occurrence which is rental house of the informant named as Zarina Villa comprising of seven rooms wherein the informant resides with his family. There is a courtyard and in the corner, there was latrine room and the courtyard is surrounded with boundary wall about five to six fit high. A gate is also fixed in the boundary wall which was used to be locked in the night. There was some sand inside the boundary wall near gate. It was told that Sindhu Kumari crossed the wall by scaling through the sand mount. He was also informed on 17.07.2002 at about 08:00 a.m. that Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 9 kidnapped victim girl has returned to her home. He sent the victim for medical examination and also got her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A of the I.P.C. In his cross-examination, he admits that the statement of the victim under Section 164 was recorded after four months of the occurrence. No birth certificate was produced by the informant showing the age of the victim girl and her age was opined to be 18 years by the doctor. P.W.-7 Rajiv Ranjan is a Judicial Magistrate who has recorded the statement of victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. And proved the same as Ex.8. 10. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the defence has adduced documentary evidence Ex.A and A/1: photographs of the accused with victim girl and with her family members. The letters were also adduced but could not be authentically proved. However, defence plea is innocence and false implication by the father of the victim girl. 11. From discussion of aforesaid evidence of the victim girl as well as other witnesses of facts including her parents and Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 10 sisters, it appears that the sole witness who can exactly prove the manner of occurrence is the victim girl herself but she has not stated in a single word as to how she was brought outside of her house when the gate was locked. She also admits the presence of her sister just after two minutes when she proceeded for discharging natural call from her room but her sister (P.W.-3) Meera Devi has not corroborated the aforesaid testimony of the victim girl. It is also obvious that the victim girl was not seen along with the accused at any point of time on the day of occurrence or till the recovery of the victim girl. It is also apparent that accused belong to Scheduled Caste whereas the informant is of upper caste that was also an obstacle for marriage. It is also admitted by all the witnesses that the accused has been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion due to his talking terms with the victim girl. The trend of evidence of witnesses also leads to the inference that in order to keep the accused (who belongs to a member of Scheduled Caste) aloof from the life of the victim, he has been implicated in this case. Although, later on when the victim girl attained the age of majority, she was married with the accused. It is settled law that where two views are Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 11 possible, one in favour of accused must be accepted. In the instant case possibility of false implication of accused cannot be overruled. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, I find merits in this appeal which is hereby allowed and impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellant is set aside. Appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged. 13. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.
Decision
14. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 29/10/2024 Sachin / NAFR Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 12