RABINDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 10.7.2001 and sentence order dated 11.7.2001 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge II, Saharsa in Sessions trial no. 09/2000 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the aforesaid offence but he acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 366A of the IPC.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. 8, Dharmnath Prasad, gave written report to Officer-in-charge, Saharsa police station on 3.6.1999 stating therein that he was working as Branch Manager, Kshetry Gramin Bank, Kurhan and on 2.6.1999 he came to his home on leave and when he reached at his home, he learnt that his daughter, namely, Suman Kumari @ Banti ( P.W 3 ) aged about 13 years had gone to her school on 1.6.1999 but she did not return till evening and after that his wife went in search of Suman Kumari @ Banti and met Sevendra Kumar (P.W 4) near Nandan Singh pokhar and when his wife enquired from the aforesaid Sevendra Kumar about her daughter, the aforesaid Sevendra Kumar (P.W 4) disclosed that he had seen her daughter Suman Kumari @ Banti along with the appellant and his brothers, namely, Surendra Kumar and Devendra Kumar going towards station and after that his wife along with his brother, Ramesh Kumar (P.W 5 ) went towards station in search of Suman Kumari @ Banti but she could not succeed to trace her out and after that Suman Kumari @ Banti was searched at the house of the appellant but no body was found in the house of the appellant. P.W 8 further stated in his written report that the appellant and Devendra Kumar are own brothers-in-law of his elder brother, namely, late Kedarnath Gupta and the appellant used to work at the shop of late Kedarnath Gupta. He further stated in his written report that the appellant had demanded Rs 50,000.00 several times from him to purchase some land and to construct his house and when P.W 8 expressed his inability to fulfil the aforesaid demand, appellant had given threatening of kidnapping of his son and daughter.

(3.) ON being receipt of the charge sheet, cognizance of the offences was taken and the case of the appellant was committed to the court of sessions, in usual way.