UPENDRA RAJAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole Appellant Upendra Rajak was put on trial to face charge under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he enticed away Kaushalya Kumari (P.W. 1) a girl below 18 years of age for the purpose of marrying her. The Trial Court having found the Appellant guilty convicted him under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine to the tune of Rs. 5000 and in default of making payment to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) The fact of the case is that Om Prakash Rajak, the informant (P. W.6) lodged the case alleging therein that on 4th March, 2004, his daughter Kaushalya Kumari had been to school and while she was on way to school, the Appellant enticed her away and on enquiry being made, he came to know that Upendra Rajak has kept her in his house. After the institution of the case against the Appellant, the matter was taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer, Satyadeo Singh, P. W. 7, who, on getting information that Upendra Rajak is at village Patharia with the victim, came over there along with police party found the Appellant as well as the victim waiting for bus at the bus stand and arrested the Appellant and also took the victim girl in his custody and sent her for medical examination, and, on getting requisition Dr. R.S. Vandana, P.W.2 examined her. On examination, she found the victim to be aged about 17 years. However, she did not find any spermatozoa in the vaginal swab. Doctor issued medical report opining therein that no definite opinion about the rape can be given. The said medical report has been marked as Ext. 2. Thereafter the Investigating Officer got the statement of victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein she stated that she had fallen in love with the Appellant Upendra Rajak and, therefore, she expressed her desire before her father that she intends to marry him which enraged him and in clear terms her father said that in no way she can marry the Appellant. Thereafter, she left her home on 4th March, 2004, with her own wishes and came to bus stand, took the vehicle and came to Itkhori where she met the Appellant and proposed to marry him. But the Appellant showed his reluctance on the plea that he is handicapped and will not be able to take care of her. But on her insistence, he agreed to marry her and both of them came to a temple where they got married and then also completed formalities of marriage in Court and then came to the matrimonial home from where she informed about it to her parents.

(3.) After completion of the investigation, police submitted chargesheet against the Appellant under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the Court of sessions, charges were framed to which Appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.