CHARAN BODRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 17.8.2000 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 188 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentented to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to his conviction are that in the afternoon of 18.8.1989, the daughter, of the informant Turam Munda, Sita Kumari was playing with other children before her house situated in mauza Silpigaha, tola Dhemka, Gora, Thana Kharsawan. It is, further stated that the appellant Charan Bodra carried away the minor girl aged about 7 years towards forest on which alarm was raised by the mother of the girl. Thereafter villagers alongwith informant went in search of the girl and found her naked at the fringe of the forest. It is further alleged that the appellant fled away seeing the villagers. The informant brought back his daughter who did not complain of any sexual exploitation except that she was made naked by the appellant. Next day the villagers caught hold of the appellant and brought to police station where statement of the informant was recorded. Kharsawan Police registered Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 41 of 1989 under section 363/366A of the Indian Penal Code and investigated the case and finally submitted the charge -sheet under sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The appellant has pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the trial court has misconstrued the fact on record. It is also asserted that there was no eye -witness of the occurrence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the investigation was perfunctory and conviction was made without any valid evidence on record. According to learned counsel, no eye witness has asserted that the appellant has carried away the victim. It was also asserted that the appellant has remained in custody for nearly seven months during the trial and one year after the conviction, therefore the appellant may be acquitted of the charges.