VINOD HEMBRUM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.9.2002 and order of sentence dated 19.9.2002 passed in S.C. Case No. 41 of 2002/ 02 of 2002 arising out of Nala (Binda Pathar) P.S. Case No. 87 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 466 of 2001 by the 2 Additional Sessions Judge, FTC Jamtara. The Appellant thereby was convicted under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the informant Dhaneshwar Mirdha (P.W. 5) along with his wife, daughter and elder son had gone out to work for wages on 30.10.2001 at 8 a.m. leaving behind his minor son Sanjay Mirdha aged about 11 years and the youngest daughter aged about 8 years in his house. When the informant returned back at about 2.p.m., he did not find his son Sanjay Mirdha, as such, he came out immediately in search of him. During course of search he was apprised by the villagers that his son was taken away by a stranger towards Kharu Bazar. The informant upon such information proceeded to Kharu Bazar on 30.10.2001 itself but his missing son could not be located. On the subsequent day on 31.10.2001 he learnt that a thief along with a boy was detained at village Haripur. He immediately rushed to Haripur village where he found his son with the stranger restrained by the villagers. The villagers of Haripur transferred the custody of his son to him whereas the Appellant Vinod Hembrum was brought before the Binda Pathar Police station. On 1.11.2002. On the written report presented by the informant father of the boy, Nala (Binda Pathar) P.S. case No. 87 of 2001 was registered for the alleged offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code against the Appellant Vinod Hembrum who was brought before the police. The Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet against the sole accused-Appellant under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused Appellant was put on trial by the 2 Additional Sessions Judge though his defence was denial of the alleged offence after charge was framed against him under the said section.

(3.) The prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses. Out of them P.W.1 Sapi Narayan Soren, a formal witness, P.W.2 Rani Mirdha, the mother of the victim, P.W.3 Manohar Mirdha the brother of the victim, P.W.4 Abhimanur Mirdha the co-villager of the informant, P.W5 the informant P.W.6 Sanjay Mirdha the victim boy, P.W.7 Raju Mirdha the elder brother of the informant, P.W.8 Upendra Singh the Investigating officer, all were examined on behalf of the prosecution Besides, P.W.9 Supal Tudu, P.W.10 Rupen Murmu P.W.11 Babusar Murmu and P.W.12 Baneshwar Hembrum were the witnesses of Haripur from where the boy was recovered from the custody of the Appellant. P.W.13 Krishnapad Bauri was the neighbor of the informant.