JUNI MAHTO @ SARJU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L.C.R., which was called for, has been received.

(2.) Mr. D.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 366, 380 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the maximum period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code besides his conviction under Sections 380 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and punishment awarded thereunder.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that the appellant was married with the daughter of the informant Surji Kumari to which photograph of the appellant's son and Surji Kumari was filed in trial Court, which was marked Exhibit-A, and the receipt issued by Bansidhar Temple of Ichak in token for celebration of marriage was also filed before the trial Court, which was marked Exhibit-B which would clearly entail that there was marriage between the son of the appellant and the daughter of the informant and several prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws. 5,6,7 and 8 were consistent in their evidence that the Informant had allowed her daughter to marry with the son of the appellant pursuant to the verdict of the village panchayat and accordingly her daughter proceeded with her husband but returned after some time when learnt that the case was filed against the appellant and other members of his family under Sections 366, 380 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.