IMTIAZ ANSARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24-9-1997 passed by Shri Satyendra Kumar Gupta, the then learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro (Camp at Tenughat) in S.T.No. 220 of 1995, whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant u/S. 376(I)/366 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years u/S. 376(I) of the IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- and in default of which to further undergo R. I. for one year. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo R. I. for seven years u/S. 366, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of which further to undergo R. I. for a period of six months. However, both the sentences ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that one Ramayan Chouhan, the Informant submitted a written report before the police (Gomia) alleging therein that on 10-8-1995 due to urgent work he had gone to his village home situated in the district of Deoria. His daughter, Sanju Kumari aged about 15 years and his younger son Manoj Kumar were present in the quarter situated at Swang New Mines. It is further alleged that on 10-8-1995 on the eve of Raksha Bandhan, Manoj along with Mahadeo Mahato, a neighbour had gone to the place of father-in-law but they could not return on the same day. On 12-8-1995 they returned when it was found that the daughter Sanju Kumari was not present in the quarter. On an enquiry she could not be traced and thereafter Manoj Kumar and Ghamru Mahto went to Behra Dabar on 12-8-95 and informed about the incident to the Informant. Thereafter, the informant came to Swang and started searching his daughter at the places of his relations, but she could not be traced. In course of search it was detected that the appellant Md. Imtiaz took away his daughter for the purpose of marriage. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was lodged. The police investigated into the case and submitted chargsheet against the appellant u/Ss. 366A and 376, IPC.

(3.) The appellant appeared before the Sessions Judge. The charges were also framed against him for the offences u/S. 366A and 376, IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. The witnesses were examined in the lower Court. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for the offences charged and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment in the manner as stated above.