KISHORE MAHTO @ KISHORI MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

(2.) BOTH the appellants abovenamed have preferred this appeal against their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default, to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment as awarded on 29th April, 2002 by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. -III, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 600 of 1992 / 70 of 2002 arising out of Chhauradano P.S. Case No. 8 of 1992.

(3.) DURING trial the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses besides producing following documents: - (i) Exhibit - 1 : - Signature of Dhruv Deo Tiwary on the Fardbeyan. (ii) Exhibit - 2 : - Formal F.I.R. in writing of Sub - Inspector, Chhauradano Police Station. Out of total seven prosecution witnesses examined, P.W.6, namely, Sripati Devi, declared hostile. P.W.7, namely, Sushil Kumar Srivastava, is a formal witness, who proved Exhibit - 2. P.W.1, namely, Raj Kishore Tiwari, is the person, who while meeting natural call could be able to see the victim going on a bicycle being driven by Kishori Mahto and one person was also on the back carrier, but he could not recognized him, but he clearly denied that the appellant, Jalil Mian, was the person on bicycle. Further, he denied giving any information to the father of the victim about the same and also by the activities of the victim; he had no doubt about her (victim) being forcibly taken out. P.W.2, namely, Gita Devi, who is the wife of the informant and mother of the victim, has stated the prosecution version and about taking out the victim. Her statement is based on the statement received through P.W.1, which he has already denied. Similar is the position of P.W.3, namely, Dhruvdeo Tiwary, the informant and both the witnesses (parents of the victim) admit that the victim studied up to class - 3 in a local school.