DIPAK KUMAR ALAIS DILIP Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment as both arise out of the judgment and order dated 19.03.1998 passed by Sri Baikunth Nath Shahi, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-IInd, Nawadah in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1996 / 198 of 1996 arising out of Nawadah P. S. Case No. 207 of 1995, GR. No. 1284 of 1995 by which the appellant Dipak Kumar @ Dilip in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 129 of 1998 has been convicted under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He has further been convicted under Section 376/109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. However, it has been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant, namely, Shankar Sao in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 189 of 1998 has been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year more and if the amount of fine is paid by the appellant then Rs.40,000/- out of that be paid to the victim girl for rehabilitation and stand in the society and has further been convicted under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. However, it has been ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as alleged, in the written report is that the informant Ishwari Mahto (P. W. 3) is the grandfather of the victim Madhuri Kumari. On 12.10.1995 the victim Madhuri Kumari had gone for study to Kusum Kanya High School, Kadirganj as usual along with her friend Radha Kumari. The victim did not return till 5:00 P.M. to her home at village Harla. The informant went to the house of Radha Kumari to enquire about Madhuri Kumari. Radha Kumari disclosed hesitantly that Shankar Sao forcibly abducted/kidnapped the victim Madhuri Kumari by dragging her in a tempo at Shakri river. The informant went to the house of Krishna Sao the father of Shankar Sao to inquire about Madhuri Kumari. It is alleged that Krishna Sao and his wife, Umesh Sao and his wife and sister of Umesh Sao said that his granddaughter will return after four days and if he made Hulla and spread the news then the informant himself will loose his prestige. The informant doubted the hand of these people in the kidnapping of victim by Shankar Sao.

(3.) The informant lodged the First Information Report on 14.10.1995. During the investigation the victim produced before the police and she was medically examined. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate. However, after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted for offence under Sections 376 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was framed under Sections 376 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code against Shakar Sao and under Sections 376/109 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code against Dipak Kumar @ Dilip and others and trial proceeded. During the trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and five witnesses were examined on behalf of the defence.