HARI KISHORE SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 140 of 2001. Mr. Ranbir Singh is appointed as Amicus Curiae in this case to assist this Court.

(2.) The two appellants have been found guilty under Sections 368 and 368A of the Indian Penal Code and have been punished to undergo imprisonment for seven years by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 389/99.

(3.) The appellant Hari Kishore Sah is the uncle of the appellant Shyam Babu Sah. The First Information Report has been instituted by Sardar Singh that his daughter Ravindar Kaur had gone to the shop to close it. In the meantime, he alleges that he heard the sound raised by her daughter and when he went to his shop he saw Shyam Babu, Chandrika Singh and Hari Kishore alongwith some other had caught hold of his daughter and forced to come out of the shop. It is alleged that Chandrika Singh made her sit on a bicycle and Hari Kishore is said to have told him that he wants to get his nephew married to the informant's daughter. On a perusal of the First Information Report, it is apparent that it does not bear any date. The institution had taken place on 31.12.97 and has been received by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 2.1.98. The girl in question was recovered by the Officer-in-charge (I.O.) in the evening of the same day on which she was supposedly kidnapped from the village on the border of Nepal. The victim girl was handed over to her parents and was produced before the Magistrate on 7.1.98 to be examined under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been argued and it is quite apparent that the First Information Report does not bear the date of its institution by the informant. The girl was not retained by the Investigating Officer to be medically examined and to be produced before the Magistrate rather she was handed over to her father and the examination under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure took place after a delay of seven days. There is also a delay of 24 hours in producing the First Information Report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, there appears to be three circumstances which indicate that written report was actually made after the girl was recovered which would indicate that the prosecution has not come with the correct fact.