GURUCHARAN KUMHAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed from the jail by the convict Gurucharan Kumhar against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.6.2004 and 28.6.2004 respectively whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VIII, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 300 of 2002, has convicted the appellant for commission of the offence under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 7 years under each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- also under each count and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the informant (P.W. 1) Bhuneshwari Gope reported to the police on 29.10.2001 that her daughter Sita Kumari was missing since 26.10.2001 and on 3.11.2001 she came to know that her daughter has been enticed away by Gurucharan Kumhar i.e. the appellant, who was a servant in the shop situated in front of her house. On receipt of the information that her daughter was taken away by the appellant to Purulia to his brother's house, then she along with her brother in law Galok Bihari Gope and her son in law Balram Gope went in search of her daughter to Serandih Purulia on 4.11.2001, from where the victim girl Sita Kumari was recovered from the house of the brother of the appellant. On the basis of the information given by the informant first information report under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code was registered and thereafter on completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted under Section 366A and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In order to establish the charges altogether 7 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution; out of whom the informant Bhuneshwari Gope is P.W. 1, victim girl Sita Kumari is P.W. 7 and Dr. Anjali Srivastava is P.W. 6. However, P.W. 2, Madhai Gope, P.W. 3 Bela Devi, P.W. 4 Kisko Gope and P.W. 5 Vishwa Gope did not support the prosecution case and they were declared hostile. Investigating Officer of the case was not examined. The statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was marked as Ext. 3.