AKLOO SAHANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both Criminal Appeal Nos, 162 of 1990 and 190 of 1990 arise from the common judgment dated 11th May., 1990, rendered by Shri Jaleshwar Ram, erstwhile Additional Sessions Judge, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 205/56 of 1982, by which the appellants suffered conviction under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of which, they were to undergo further imprisonment for six months. However, sentence of imprisonment in default of fine would run concurrently. Both these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Shortly after Asharfi Sahni (PW 4) returned to his house from Motihari, he learnt from his daughter-in-law about appellants having enticed away his grand daughter Kabutri Devi, aged about 12 years on pretext of taking her to Vishnu Yaga, with an object to compel her marriage. The worried grandfather made hectic search for the missing grand daughter but there was no trace of her. He also made inquiries from Raghunath Salmi, Rajendra Sahni and others and finding no trace of the victim girl, set the Police in motion and with these narrations, statement of Asharfi Sahni was recorded at Madhuban Police Station, District East Champaran, which also forms basis of first information report drawn up on 13-4-1978. After commencement of the investigation. Police took necessary steps for recovery of the victim girl, visited various places, recorded statement of the witnesses and eventually, recovered Kabutri Devi from the house of one Ramayan Singh in village Khwajapur which is situated in the district of Gopalganj. The Police is also alleged to have apprehended appellant Bhageshwar Sahni from the house of the said Ramayan Singh and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. The appellants on being committed to the Court of Sessions were eventually sent for trial.

(3.) At trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses and the trial Court on appreciation of evidences placed on record on behalf of the State found the appellants guilty and sentenced them in the manner stated above.