GANGA BISHUN SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been found guilty for offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for each of the offences by the Sessions Judge, Purnia in Sessions Trial No. 353 of 1992.

(2.) THE prosecution case instituted by Sundar Turi, the father of the victim girl, is that he learnt from Wakil Rai that his daughter was seen on the tractor of the appellant near Birauli Bazar. On learning this fact, he went to the house of the appellant and met the appellant's father who promised to return his daughter as soon as possible. When the daughter did not return he lodged a case on 8.7.1992. His daughter was missing since 14.6.1992.

(3.) P .W. 1, Wakil Rai is named in the First Information Report. He was the person who claimed that he had seen the victim girl Sonamani Kumari on the tractor of the accused. A suggestion has been given to this witness that the appellant has been dragged into this case because there was some land dispute between the father of the appellant and the father of the victim girl. Apart from this fact, there is nothing which would lead this Court to doubt the testimony of P.W. 1. On the other hand, this Court finds that P.W. 2 has been introduced by the prosecution as an after thought. According to P.W. 2, he had seen the appellant and the victim girl together. It is the case of P.W. 2 and subsequently of both the father and mother of the victim girl that the victim girl had handed over a bundle to P.W. 2 Basudeo Mandal which he subsequently handed over to the sister of the victim girl. This story has been introduced for the first time in Court. No such fact has been mentioned in the First Information Report and as such this Court is not inclined to believe P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 regarding this aspect of the case which has been developed by the prosecution. From the tenor of the evidence of P.W. 6, it would appear that she had consented to go with the appellant as according to her he had enticed her, assuring her of a good future in view of the fact that he was well placed in life and has plenty of property as well as a tractor and was quite rich as compared to the family of the victim girl. P.W. 6 states that after she went with the appellant they lived at different places. She admits that they also went to the Court to marry but the marriage could not take place on account of the fact that their lawyer had supposedly told her that she was a minor. It further transpires from her evidence that when the appellant came to know that a case has been instituted against him, he thought it better to bring her back to the village, however, they were apprehended by the Mukhiya on the way who took them to the police station where the girl was examined by the Investigating Officer and the Doctor i.e. P.W. 7.