HARISH KARIM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Shri B.K.Gautam, Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 269 of 1999 arising out of Panki P.S. Case No. 50 of 1998 corresponding to G.R.No.1363 of 1998 by which the appellants were convicted under Section 366 I.P.C. and each of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The prosecution story as it stands narrated in the statement of the informant Moiz Khan( P.W.2) was that in the night intervening 19/20.11.1998 while he was sleeping with his wife in one room and his daughter-in-law and other daughters Nazani Khatoon (victim) and Rizwana Khatoon were sleeping in another room, his daughter Rizwan Khatoon came to him and apprised that Nazani Khatoon was no longer there in their room and had gone somewhere. The informant with his wife and other witnesses immediately came out in search of their daughter but she could not be located. The back door of the house was found open. The informant claimed having seen his daughter Nazani Khatoon during her search being taken away by three young persons. He called out his nephew Md. Jubair Khan, Md. Junair Khan & Md. Hafiz Khan and narrated the occurrence that his daughter was taken away by the three culprits. He claimed to identify the appellants in the light of torch as the persons who had taken away his daughter and that when he tried to stop them, the culprits retaliated by firing shot. The informant then returned to his house and found that the briefcase containing gold and silver jewellaries and Rs. 50,000/- in cash were removed as were taken away by the culprits including the clothes of his daughter Nazani.

(3.) Finally, the informant alleged that the appellant Harish Karim used to visit his village with his friends and he had abducted his daughter in order to marry her against her will though she was already married. Upon such statement, the case was instituted against 5 accused persons for the alleged offence under Sections 363/366/380 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 27 of the Arms Act.