JHABBARRISHIDEO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th October, 1985 passed in Sessions Case No. 12/85 (M) by Shri Ram Kishore Singh, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa convicting both the appellants under Sections 363, 366 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonments for 5 years, 10 years and 2 years respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that on 23-1-1984 at about 10 A. M., Gangia Devi (P. W. 4) along with her neighbour, Kiran Devi (P. W. 1) came to Singheshwar temple to offer Puja. At about 12 A. M. both the appellants named above came there and talked to P. W. 4 privately. After that P. W. 4 asked P. W. 2 wait there for some time till she returns from Dera. Saying so, P. W. 4 went away with both these appellants P. W. 1 waited for her for some time but when she did not return back she came back to her house and narrated the entire story to Ganeshwar Modi (P. W. 5), father of P. W. 4. P. W. 5 went out in search of P. W. 4 and on the following day he saw her near Saharsa railway station. He rescued P. W 4 from the clutches of the appellants and brought her to his house. Subsequently he lodged the F. I. R. (Ext. 4). The police after completing the investigations submitted the charge sheet. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the appellants were convicted in the manner indicated above by the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) In this appeal, the appellants have contended that from the prosecution story itself, it will become clear that P. W. 4 was not ill-treated by them. No case under Section 363, 366 or 403 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the appellants. The prosecution has completely failed to prove its case and findings of the learned court below to the contrary are based on conjuctures and surmises. The necessary legal ingredients of Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code have not been satisfied. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. The appellants have been falsely implicated in this case since they demanded higher wages from P. W. 5. On these grounds amongst others, it has been contended that the judgment of conviction be set aside and the appellants be acquitted.