PAWAN KUMAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant, above named, faced trial for offences under Sections 366(A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act before learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist-cum-Special Judge, Madhubani in connection with Babubarhi P.S.Case No.04 of 2016 corresponding to G.R.No.02 of 2016.

(2.) The prosecution case as disclosed in the written report dated 09.01.2016 of Mr. Hari Narayan Yadav (P.W.8) is that on 05.01.2016 at about 6.00 P.M., his minor daughter, aged about 16 years, had gone towards east of her house to answer the call of nature but she did not return. The informant searched her hither and thither including to the relatives but she could not be found. On 08.01.2016, one Deo Narayan Yadav (P.W.4), a co-villager stated that the daughter of the informant was seen on a motorcycle with the appellant. The informant further disclosed that the daughter was carrying a mobile phone in which SIM card purchased in the name of appellant was being used. On the date of occurrence, the victim had talked to the appellant, hence had belief that the appellant had induced the victim to go with him and the appellant might throw her in flesh trade or use her for immoral purpose.

(3.) On the written report aforesaid, Babubarhi P.S.Case No.04 of 2016 was registered and after completion of investigation, the police submitted chargesheet only against the appellant whereas investigation was kept pending against other co- accused.