PAPPU RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and Mr. Nawin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the informant.

(2.) This instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 19/9/2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. Case No.206 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Ss. 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of three years and fine of Rs.1000.00 and R.I. of four years along with fine of Rs.2000.00 for the above offences respectively with default stipulation.

(3.) The factual matrix as depicted in the F.I.R. lodged by one Birendra Prasad Verma is that in the intervening night of 15/16/7/2002 at about 9 hours, all the family members after taking dinner were under profound sleep. It is alleged that in one room informant's four daughters and granddaughters were sleeping and in another room informant along with his grandson and wife were sleeping. It is further alleged that at about 02:00 a.m., one of the daughters Sindhu Kumari @ Tinu aged about 14 years got up to discharge nature's call and went towards bathroom but did not return till sometime then her elder sister went to see her but did not found Sindhu Kumari in the toilet then she informed to all family members. The informant has raised suspicion against the present appellant for enticing/taking away the minor daughter of the informant in pretext of performing marriage with her as they were under talking terms with each other. The informant also went to the house of Pappu Ram who was not present in his house since previous night. It is alleged that the victim girl was studying in Class IX. On the basis of above information F.I.R. was instituted as Sadar Hazaribagh P.S. Case No.279 of 2002 for the offences under Ss. 363 and 366(A) of the I.P.C., after institution of First Information Report, the victim girl returned to her home and her statement was recorded. She was also physically examined by doctor and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the sole accused (present appellant).