JAIKANT MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant Jaikant Mandal has challenged the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2004 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No.77 of 1992, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further period of six months.

(2.) Salient features of the prosecution case, which is based on the fardbeyan of Manilal Mandal recorded on 23.04.1991, in short, is that on 23.03.1991, Jaikant Mandal the present appellant, came to his house at village Jhagrahi and informed that wife of his son Naresh Mandal has to appear in High School examination at Sheikhpura and so Naresh has to go there. As Jaikant Mandal was co-brother (Sadhu) of Naresh Mandal in relation, the informant allowed his son Naresh Mandal to go with Jaikant Mandal. On 10.04.1991, his Samdhi Kailash Chandra Mandal came to his house and informed that his son Naresh Chandra Mandal had been bitten by a dog and he became mad and ran away. Thereafter, the informant along with Binod Mandal and Parsuram Mandal went to search his son at all possible places but his son was not found. It is further alleged that as per information given by his Samdhi he also went to the house of Kedar Prasad Kurmi in Sheikhpura, Munger where wife of said Kedar Prasad informed that Naresh Mandal along with 5-6 persons who disclosed them as brotherin-law, co-brother and father-in-law had come to her house and wife of Naresh was also with them but a mar-peet took place between Naresh Mandal and his brother-in-law 2-3 days prior to the last examination of the wife of Naresh Mandal. Further allegation is that his daughter-inlaw had illicit relation with Nundhan Mandal, Jaikant Mandal, Niranjan Mandal which had been seen by his son Naresh Mandal also and on 08.04.1991, the accused persons had given some intoxicant to his son and after beating him took him to some unknown place and since then his son has not been seen. It is also alleged that the above persons had assaulted his son with intent to kill him and had knowingly given false information.

(3.) In the F.I.R., in the column 'date and hour of the occurrence', the period has been given between 25.03.1991 to 09.04.1991.