BIPIN RAJVANSHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant Bipin Rajvanshi got conviction for offences under Sections 363 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 6 of the POCSO Act by learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Nawada, in POCSO Case No. 4 of 2016, arising out of Nardiganj P.S. Case No.173 of 2015. The learned trial Judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. A fine of rupees ten thousand and in default of payment of fine three months simple imprisonment was also ordered. No separate sentence was awarded under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code considering the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act; rather ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of rupees fifty thousand was awarded under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and in default of payment of fine six months rigorous imprisonment was ordered. The judgment of conviction dated 18.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 20.04.2018 are under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report dated 10.12.2015 of Gaya Mistri (PW 3) is that on 04.12.2015, at about 12:00 Noon, Shabo Kumari and Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi, both daughter and son of Nande Rajvanshi, came to the house of the informant and asked the minor daughter of the informant to accompany for village Sobhiya where marriage of the appellant was to be solemnized. They further promised that they would return after solemnization of the marriage. Nande Rajvanshi and his wife were also present at that time. The appellant is Dewar of the daughter of Nande Rajvanshi. It is further disclosed that the appellant, who is disabled from one leg, was residing since last 2 to 3 months in village Nardidih, i.e., village of the informant, and was doing contract work at brick kiln in the village. After two days, the family members of Nande Rajvanshi returned but the daughter of the informant (PW 10) did not return. Then informant got suspicion that all have kidnapped to his daughter for the purpose of marriage. Thereafter informant and others started search out of the victim but did not succeed to get her traced out. Thereafter, FIR was lodged on 10.12.2015.

(3.) The prosecution examined altogether 12 witnesses. No defence evidence was produced. PW 1 Dinesh Prasad Singh, PW 2 Rekha Devi, the mother of the prosecutrix, PW 3 Gaya Mistri, the father of the victim girl, have consistently supported the manner of occurrence as disclosed in the FIR which is inconsistent with the statement of PW 10 regarding the place and manner of kidnapping of the victim. PW 4-Upendra Paswan, PW 5-Raj Kumar Rajvanshi, PW 6- Ratan Manjhi, PW 7-Nablesh Rajvanshi and PW 8-Shiv Rajvanshi have supported the prosecution case as hearsay witnesses. PW 9 Dr. Raj Kishore Prasad is a member of the Medical Board which had examined the victim along with PW 11 Dr. Sudha Kumari Sharma.