MD MUNNA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction dated 25.01.2005 by which the solitary appellant was found guilty of committing offence under Section 364 IPC. On hearing the appellant on sentence on 28.01.2005 the learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court No.V, Sitamarhi directed the appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- also and in case of default in making the payment of fine the appellant was to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. THE appellant has questioned his conviction and the sentences passed upon him on that account.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the daughter of the informant (P.W.12), aged about four years and playing on 23.01.2002 at a place in front of his house, went missing. In spite of hectic search, she could not be traced out. In the morning of 25.01.2002, the informant claimed to have learnt about the finding of a girl child by the police and further that the child was being kept at Tariyani police station. Accordingly, he went there and found his daughter, namely, Sunita Kumari aged four years and identified her. P.W.12 further found the man at the police station from whose custody the child had been recovered and who was allegedly taking away the child in a gunny bag for the purpose either of killing her or selling her.

(3.) FINDING of the girl from the possession of the present appellant appears averred by the three Chawkidars who were examined as P.Ws.7, 8 and 9. There have some variances which do not appear material. Whereas, the witnesses show that the child was recovered from the possession of the appellant, P.W.9 Panchu Paswan would say that when he arrived at the village he found the appellant closet inside a room by the villagers in the house of Hari Prasad. The contention of the learned counsel was that the owner of the house, Hari Prasad, has not been examined. Thus, leaving a gap in the proof of the fact. The prosecution case was that the man was taken after being arrested by the public directly to the police station. P.W.10 Shankar Rai said that after coming across the girl child being kept inside a gunny bag so as to be carried away, the man was detained by him and other villagers, and the Chawkidar was informed. This statement could necessary give out that the man must have been kept either by being confined or by simple detention at some place on the other. That part of the evidence to me, does not appear of much relevance. The relevance is that the present appellant was found with a gunny bag containing the child and that child was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Witnesses except P.W.10 have stated that when they reached at the police station or in the village, like the three Chawkidars, P.Ws.7, 8 and 9, they found the child either at the police station or at the village in custody of the man from whom the child had been recovered. Thus, the circumstances of being in possession of the child has directly been corroborated by witnesses, like, P.W.3 to P.W.10 and this court does not have the doubt in the least that it could be the appellant who was in possession of the little child.