BALESHWAR CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary appellant Baleshwar Chouhan was tried by the learned Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court IV, Sheikhpura after being charged of committing offences under sections 363, 366 and 366A IPC and, by judgment dated 21.2.2007, was held guilty of committing the offence only under section 366A of the Penal Code, and was directed to suffer RI for seven years and to pay a fine of rupees one thousand. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been ordered to undergo RI for one month. The appellant has preferred the present appeal to challenge the correctness of the findings and propriety of sentence recorded and passed against him.

(2.) Written report of P.W. 2 Naresh Pandit was the basis of the case. It was stated by the informant, who happened to be the father of Soni Kumari (P.W.4) that his daughter who was mentally deficient, strayed away from his house four days prior to the submission of Ext. 1. He made a search for his daughter at all possible places including those of the relatives but, could not find her out. On 17.6.2005, Vikas Kumar (C.W. 1) told him that Soni Kumari was being taken away by the present appellant to Bengal for being subjected to sexual intercourse or for being offered in that behalf. C.W. 1 sighted the present appellant and P.W. 4 while they were about to board the train and, as such, came near the victim to make an enquiry as to where she was heading to, upon which the present appellant is said to have questioned his authority of making such enquiries and that ultimately resulted into some wordy duel. It is stated that the victim pointed out to C.W. 1 that the appellant was taking her to Bengal. On account of the duel between the appellant and C.W. 1, people were attracted there and there was some exchange of blows between the appellant and C.W.1 as well, whereafter the victim (P.W. 4) was brought to the police station. The police informed the informant regarding the incident and accordingly, the informant presented the written report, on the basis of which FIR of the case (Ext.2) was drawn.

(3.) Investigation was taken up by P.W. 6, namely, S.I. Devendra Paswan, who stated that he recorded the further statement of the informant and went to hold the inspection of the place of occurrence, which was a house located west of Hanuman temple in Sheikhpura. It was a house consisting of four rooms and the informant was residing with his family in one of those rooms. The I.O. stated that after having completed the investigation, he sent up the appellant for trial.