AWADHESH RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment dated 24.4.2003 of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaimur at Bhabhua passed in Sessions Trial No. 146/2000/117/2002 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Ss. 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.l.for 10 years under each of the two counts and which sentence are to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution commenced with the written report of the informant dated 2.6.1999 as filed before the officer-in-charge, Mohania P.S. on 3.6.1999 wherein the informant Rajdulari Devi (P.W. 3), resident of village Mohammadpur stated that she along with her three daughters was living as a tenant in the house of Bharat Mali, situated in station road, Mohania and that she was maintaining her daughters by earning wages as daily labourer and that her husband was living at her village home. She further stated that on 5.5.1999 (which date has been over written in the written report with the date 25.4.1999) while she had gone out for earning her daily wages and her daughters were in the house the appellant Awadhesh Ram came there and he enticed away her daughter Pratima Kumari aged 14 years for the purpose of marrying her and took her to his village. She (informant) learnt about it from her other daughters who also disclosed that the appellant had talked Pratima Kumari in seclusion. She further alleged that on the next day i.e. 6.5.1999 she started searching her daughter but in the meantime she suffered of sun-stroke as a result of which, she remained ailing for a week and thereafter, when she recovered from the ailment, she again started searching her daughter and in course of that she learnt that the appellant had enticed her daughter and he was keeping her at his house. She further stated that on 2.6.1999 she went to the house of the appellant, she found her daughter there. Seeing her, the daughter started weeping and she became ready to go with her (informant). But in the meantime some villagers informed the appellant who came there and abused her and also fell upon to assault her as a results of which, she left that place and came to the Police Station where she gave her written report. She stated in the written report that she had not informed the matter earlier to the police due to fear of her social prestige being maligned.

(3.) As many as six witnesses were examined by prosecution. The appellant also examined three defence witnesses.