SURENDRA RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.08.1993 and the order dated 30.08.1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 535 of 1992 whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for offence under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter will be called as I.P.C.) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (three) years on each count with direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief is that victim Bindu Kumari aged about 13 years was residing with her parents in a quarter situated within the campus of P.M.C.H. She was found missing from her house since 21.11.1991. The informant Hemanti Rai, who is the mother of the victim Bindu Kumari made hectic search of her daughter and when she failed to trace her, she informed the police. On the basis of which the police registered Station diary entry (Ext. 6). In the mean time the informant came to learn that her daughter had been concealed in the adjacent quarter of the appellant then the informant along with her family members went to the house of the appellant and demanded return of her daughter but neither the appellant nor his parents became ready to release the girl and then again the informant approached police and submitted her written report (Ext. 9) in the Police Station. Thereafter the police arrived at the quarter of the appellant and recovered the victim girl along with the appellant. It is further said that some persons attacked the police party and threw brick bats upon the police personnel. After recovery the victim was referred for medical examination and she was examined by a lady doctor. During course of investigation police recorded the statement of the victim and on the basis of the statement of the victim the police submitted charge sheet under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. against the appellant on the basis of which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna took cognizance of the offence and transferred the case to the Court of Sri Om Prakash, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna for trial. Thereafter on 24.06.1992 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. On 18.08.1992 charge under Sections 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and then he was put on trial.

(3.) During trial the prosecution examined altogether 9 witnesses in this case namely Shyam Kumar (P.W.1), Yogendra Prasad (P.W.2), Jogendra Prasad (P.W. 3), Anil Kumar (P.W.4), Hemanti Rai (P.W.5), Bindu Kumari (P.W.6), S.I. Shram Singh (P.W.7), S.I. Nawal Kishore Singh (P.W.8) and doctor Narendra Kaur (P.W.9). Out of the said witnesses P.W.1, P.W. 2 and P.W.4 are hostile witnesses. P.W.5 is the informant of this case, P.W. 6 is victim Bindu Kumari, P.W.7 and P.W.8 are police officers who had recovered the victim from the house of the appellant, P.W.9 is doctor who had examined the victim and P.W.3 is an independent witness on the point of recovery of the victim from the house of the appellant.