MUNSI PREM CHAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties. In Cr.Appeal(SJ)No.249 of 1995 the appellants are Habri Devi @ Kanti Devi, Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kumar Singh, Indu Devi and Birendra Singh @ Viso. In Cr.Appeal(SJ)No.247 of 1995 the appellants are Munsi Prem Chand Singh and Gopal Singh. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.1995 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur, in Sessions Trial No.8 of 1995/13 of 1995. The trial court has convicted all the six appellants for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. So far as the appellants Munsi Prem Chand Singh and Gopal Singh are concerned, they have further been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each. However, the sentences have been, ordered to run concurrently. It is to be noted here that the appellant Gopal Singh was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code but the trial court on appreciation of evidence acquitted him of the aforesaid charge.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, according to the informant Parmanand Choudhary (P.W.3) is that on 31.10.1993 his daughter Bandana Devi (P.W.10), aged about 16 years, who had been married about three years back in village-Bambaiya, had gone to see a film to Dalsingsarai along with the appellants Habri Devi, and her daughter Indu Devi but, did not return to the house till late in the evening. The informant states that he along with his wife, namely, Bina Devi(P.W.8), went to the house of the appellant Habri Devi and enquired about his daughter. The appellants Habri Devi @ Kanti Devi and Indu Devi told them that she has gone to her Nanihal but when she did not return for 2-3 days then the informant went to his Sasural to enquire about his daughter. However, when he reached there he came to know that the victim had not gone there. Thereafter, he went to the matrimonial house of his daughter and informed them about the incident. His son-in-law Kamalkant Jha was engaged in some job at Jalandhar and as such, he was not available there in his village. The information was given to his elder brother Sobhakant Jha who also made his efforts to search the daughter of the informant at different places but the victim could not be traced. Ultimately, the informant reported the matter to the police on 09.11.1993, alleging therein, interalia, that he has reason to believe that the appellants Habri Devi @ Kanti Devi and Indu Devi have managed the abduction/kidnapping of his daughter. The informant has also mentioned in his report to the police that the witnesses Bina Devi, Siyaram Choudhary, Ramsagar Choudhary, Chandrakala Devi and Ramchandra Choudhary have also seen the victim going along with the appellants Habri Devi @ Kanti Devi and Indu Devi.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the informant, Dalsingsarai P.S.Case No.133 of 1993 dated 09.11.1993, was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants Habri Devi @ Kanti Devi and Indu Devi and investigation was taken up. It is relevant to note it here that the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by P.W.11 Yashwant Kumar Singh who himself took up the investigation of the case.