SAYARA BANO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application arises against the order dated 15-7-03 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Rajmahal in Sessions Trial No.155 of 2002 whereby the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, has rejected the prayer of the petitioners to discharge them.

(2.) In short the prosecution case as per the FIR is that in the night of the 16/17-1-97 the informant Sudama Prasad Gupta and his wife were sleeping in a room and their daughters Muni Kumari aged about 15/16 years and Bindu Kumari aged about 13/14 years were sleeping in another room. In the morning Muni Kumari was found missing. The informant started searching his daughter Muni Kumari and then he came to know that she was induced away by Jamshed, a neighbour boy and his daughter was taken to Chandipur and thereafter, she was shifted to Sahibganj. On being enquired, the father of said Jamshed gave evasive reply. When his daughter was not traced out then he lodged FIR under Section 366-A in which subsequently Section 376, IPC was also added.

(3.) Initially, the charge-sheet was submitted against the main accused Jamshed and subsequently charge-sheet was submitted against these petitioners also, on the basis of which congnizance under Section 366-A and 376 was taken. The case was committed to the Court of Session and thereafter, a petition under Section 227, Cr. P.C. was filed on behalf of these petitioners on the ground that these petitioners have no hand in the alleged occurrence of kidnapping or inducing or in enticing the informant minor daughter. The learned Trial Court after referring some of the paragraphs of the case diary came to the conclusion that at the stage of framing of charge meticulous consideration of the evidence was not required and only sufficiency of ground for proceeding against the accused has to be seen. Accordingly learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for discharge of the petitioners by order dated 19-7-04.