UMESH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dtd. 31/8/2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No. IV, Dhanbad in S.T. No.402 of 2001 whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sec. 376 and 366A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of 7 years and 5 years respectively. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant was in judicial custody in connection with Topchanchi P.S. Case No.11 of 2001 along with his two sons and he was released on bail on 19/4/2001, when the informant returned to his home, then he came to know from his wife that his minor daughter aged about 14 years has been taken out by Umesh Pandey, Nagesh Pandey, Lalita Devi and Noor Mohammad by inducing her to solemnize marriage with Umesh Pandey. It is further alleged that the appellant and other associates have kidnapped his daughter by taking advantage of absence of the informant. It is further alleged that the informant's wife had gone to the house of Umesh Pandey, where she was threatened on the point of pistol saying that he has solemnized marriage with her minor daughter.

(3.) On the basis of written report of the informant Jagdamba Rawani, Topchanchi P.S. Case No.54 of 2001 dtd. 21/4/2001 was registered against the accused persons for the offence under Sec. 366A r/w 34 of IPC. In course of investigation, the victim girl was recovered from the house of the appellant (Umesh Pandey). The statement of the victim girl was recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.PC and she has disclosed about commission of rape with her by the accused Umesh Pandey, hence Sec. 376 of IPC was also added in the FIR. The victim girl was sent for medical examination and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet under Sec. 366A, 376, 420/34 of IPC was submitted against four accused persons namely Nagesh Pandey, Lalita Devi, Noor Mohamad and Umesh Pandey. After cognizance, the case was committed to the court sessions, accordingly S.T. Case No.402 of 2001 was registered and trial proceeded against all the accused persons for the offence under Sec. 366A, 420 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and separate charge was framed against Umesh Pandey for the offence under Sec. 376 of IPC. After conclusion of trial, the other accused persons have been acquitted whereas the present appellant was held guilty and sentenced as stated above.