BIRU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The solitary appellant was charged with committing offences under Sections 366-A and 376, IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Patna for being put on trial in Sessions Trial No. 947 of 2005 and by judgment dated 15-01.2007 was held guilty of committing those offences. After being heard under Section 235 Cr.P.C. the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years as also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, else to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 366-A, IPC. Besides, the appellant was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and was also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, else to suffer further period of rigorous imprisonment for one and half years for his conviction under Section 376, IPC. The appellant has preferred the present appeal to challenge the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

(2.) For an occurrence dated 08.12.2004, the fardbeyan of PW 5 Parwati Devi was recorded by the police in Kankarbagh area of Patna on 15.12.2004 at 7 p.m. in which it was stated by the informant that her daughter Neela Kumari went to bring some sweets from a sweet shop but did not return. In spite of search no trace of the victim could be found. Lastly, it appears that the lady came to know that because her daughter was on very friendly terms with the present appellant and the appellant was also infatuated for the lady it could be the present appellant who could have either taken or enticed away her daughter. The informant came to the house of the present appellant in order to making an enquiry from him about his daughter but the present appellant stated that his daughter had gone back long ago after having purchased the sweets. The informant went to the proprietor of the sweet meat shop who was certain Upadhaya Jee who also stated that her daughter had gone back after having purchased the sweet and having received the balance amount. The informant found that the present appellant had gone traceless and, as such, she started making enquiries about the present appellant from that particular Upadhaya Jee also, but he simply did not give any lead to the informant and on account of the fact that the appellant was suspected to have put some greedy eyes upon the daughter of the informant, she inferred that it could be the present appellant who could have taken her daughter away.

(3.) On the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext-1) of PW 5, the FIR (Ext-3) was drawn up and investigation was undertaken by PW 6 who recorded the statement of victim and, lastly, on 17.12.2006 could get some clues indicating as if the victim and one Sonu Kumar had been seen in the slums in the backyard of Panchmandir area of Kankarbagh and accordingly, PW 6 went there. He found the said Sonu Kumar and the victim Neela Kumari sitting comfortably in the backyard of a jhopari Seeing the police, Sonu Kumar attempted to run awa0y but he was captured and arrested. The victim was also taken into custody by the police and was brought to the police station on 17.12.2004 and was produced before PW 7 Dr. Shivani Mukherjee for her medical examination and also for the assessment of her age. The doctor did not find any external or internal injury on the person of the victim and further found that her hymen was ruptured. The Radiological reports indicated as if the lady could be aged somewhere in between 14 to 16 years as appears stated by PW 7.