RAJESH SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23-12-2002 and order dated 24-12-2002 passed by Sessions Judge, East Champaran at Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 175 of 2000 convicting and sentencing the appellant Rajesh Sah to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 366A of Indian Penal Code (In short "I P C") and rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years under Section 376 of IPC but ordering the sentence to run concurrently, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The case of prosecution, as disclosed in the written statement (Exhibit-3) of informant Shivnath Sah (PW 7), in short, is that on 29-7-1999 at about 7 p.m. informant along with his wife Uma Devi (PW 6) and minor daughter Asha Kumari aged about twelve years had gone to the house of his neighbour Nanhu Sah to attend a function. He became busy in the work and in the meantime, appellant enticed away his minor daughter Asha Kumari. Informant started searching for his daughter but he could not get any clue and he went to the house of appellant and found him absconding and on further enquiry, he came to know that Paras Sah, Jailal Sah and Ramanand Sah also had their hands who helped the appellant in the kidnapping of his minor daughter. On the basis of written report of informant, formal first information report (Exhibit-4) was drawn against appellant under Sections 366A, 120B/34 of IPC and the police, after investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant showing first information report named accused Ramanand Sah and non-first information report accused Manju Devi absconder and keeping the investigation pending against other first information report named accused Paras Sah, Jailal Sah and showing non-first information report named accused Subhash Sah and Brij Mohan Sah not sent up for trial. Cognizance of the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session where charges under Sections 366A and 376 of IPC were framed. After trial, appellant was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced, as stated above.

(3.) No witness on behalf of appellant was examined during trial. The case of defence, as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.