ROHIT RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. 66/96 and 68/96 arise out of the judgment dated 6th August, 1996 and order of sentence dated 7th August, 96 passed in Sessions Trial No. 29/94, whereby the learned Sessions Judge held all the appellants guilty under Section 366A IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ - each and in default of payment they were further directed to undergo RI for one year each. All the appellants were further directed to undergo RI for three months each under Section 323 IPC. Accused Pran Lohra (not appellant here) was further held guilty under Section 376 IPC and was directed to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of payment of fine he was further directed to undergo RI for six months. The sentences imposed upon the appellants were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15 -8 -93 at 5 p.m. informant Anil Beck alongwith Jivan Bara and Soren Toppo aged about 16 years, Punni William Toppo and Raj Kumar Oraon went to Chainpur Bus stand of Gumla to catch the bus for Raidih and when they reached the bus stand they learnt that there was no bus to go to Raidih and so they were returning and when they reached the Chowk of Bara Durga Mandir Road, suddenly four persons appeared there and started assaulting them with fists and belts, whereupon Jivan and Raj Kumar made good their escape but criminals caught Soren Toppo and dragged her forcibly to unknown place. Informant Anil Beck tried to rescue her but accused persons assaulted him by fists and belts and thrashed him down and thereafter they forcibly took Soren Toppo on bicycle and the remaining accused persons ran behind the bicycle. The informant identified one of the accused as Rohit Ram, who was working as an agent for small buses at the Chainpur bus stand and who had taken Soren Toppo on his bicycle. The informant claimed to identify all the accused, who had participated in the commission of crime if he chances to see them. After some time students of the college came there to rescue the victim girl but without any result. On the statement of informant a case under Sections 366A, 341 and 323 IPC was registered and in course of investigation, on the statement of victim girl made on 7 -8 -93, a case under Section 376 IPC was added. Victim girl and others identified the persons in TI Parade as participants in the commission of crime. Charges were framed under Sections 341, 323, 366A and 376/34 IPC and cognizance was taken. After trial, appellants were found guilty and were sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) CR . Appeal No. 68/96 has been filed on behalf of the appellant Chandul @ Umakant Singh. The learned counsel appearing for this appellant has assailed the judgment on the points which have been assailed by the appellant of Cr. Appeal No. 66/96. It was also pointed out that there is no allegation against this appellant and also there is no evidence of the victim girl that this appellant induced her for illicit intercourse with any other person. There is also no allegation against this appellant that he kidnapped and committed rape on the victim girl.