KRISHNA BHUIYA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant Krishna Bhuiyan has preferred this Cr. Appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his conviction under Section 366 -A, IPC passed by Shri B.N.P. Singh, Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 367/1997 on 17th July, 1998 whereby and whereunder he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case as it stands narrated in the statement of Bandhu Bhuiyan (PW 4) before the police on 21.2.1997 that while he was returning on 10.2.1997 from his matrimonial village with his wife Shakunti Devi to his own village Paneri Bandh and arrived near the cross roads after alighting from the bus at about 6 p.m., he was apprehended by the appellant Krishna Bhuiyan and two unknown persons who forcibly abducted his wife Shakunti Devi from his custody. The appellant happened to be the uncle of the informant Bandhu Bhuiyan in relation and it was alleged that whenever the appellant visited Latehar. he used to come in contact with Shakunti Devi. After extensive search the informant came to learn that the appellant had taken away Shakunti Devi to village Golhna and she was put in the house of one Rajmuni Bhuiyan. He further alleged that his wife Shakunti Devi was kidnapped by the appellant with the intention to many her. The law was set in motion by institution of Daltonganj (Sadar) F.S. Case No. 71/1997 for the offence under Section 363/366, IPC. In course of investigation Shakunti Devi was recovered by the police from the custody of Rajmuni Bhuiyan. the brother -in -law of the appellant Krishna Bhuiyan from village Golhna. The victim girl was examined by doctor and alter investigation the police submitted charge -sheet against the appellant Krishna Bhuiyan for the offence under Section 366/366 -A/376 IPC. The charge against the appellant was framed in the aforesaid sections to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and hence he was put on trial.

(3.) ADVANCING his argument Mr. Tripathy submitted that Sakunti Devi was produced and examined as PW 6 before the trial Court who disclosed her age as 20 years on 26.5.1998 and the same view was taken by the trial Judge while assessing her age. In this view of the matter the conviction of the appellant under Section 366 -A is not sustainable. He further submitted that the offence under Section 366 -A relates to procuration of minor girl which speaks: