TRIBHUWAN MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The appellant in the present case is seeking setting aside of the judgment dtd. 17/6/2014 passed by learned Adhoc, Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bagha (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned court' or 'the learned trial court') in Sessions Trial No. 85 of 2012/SL No. 491 of 2013 (State versus Tribhuwan Mahto) by which the learned court has been pleased to hold and declare that the appellant has committed offence punishable under Sec. 364 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC') and he is guilty of the said offence. Upon setting aside of the judgment of the learned trial court, the appellant prays for setting aside of the order dtd. 18/6/2014 by which the learned trial court has awarded a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000.00 to the appellant and in default of payment of fine, the appellant has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months for the offence committed by him punishable under Sec. 364 IPC.

(3.) As per the prosecution story, the eldest son of the informant was working in an orchestra party of the appellant. The appellant used to visit her house. It is alleged that on 15/6/2009 at about 6:00 PM, the appellant came at the informant's house and asked the whereabouts of her son, namely, Mantosh and said that her son had brought his mobile. It is further alleged that due to appellant's regular visits at her house, the kids of the family had become familiar with him and on the said date, the appellant took informant's youngest son, Vipin Kumar to get him biscuits and sweets. It is alleged that after much delay when her son did not return, she started searching for him and came to know from the shopkeepers that the appellant has taken away her son towards Tamkhni Road on his motorcycle. In course of search, the informant went to the sasural of the appellant where the wife of the appellant told the informant that after she returns the mobile phone of her husband then her son will be returned. The informant returned the mobile in presence of Mukhiya and assurance was given to her that her son will be returned but her son was not returned.