JAI KRISHNA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have preferred this Cr. Appeal against the judgment of conviction under Sections 366 and 376 I.P.C. and order of sentence passed against them awarding rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and 10 years respectively on each count by Shri S. Prasad, learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 36/1999. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution story is in narrow compass. The informant Anti Mandal (P.W. 5) delivered his statement before the Pathargama Police Station on 14.2.99 with respect to the occurrence that on 7.2.1999 at about 4 p.m. his daughter -in -law Rita Devi P.W. 6, had been to the grazing grounds with the she -goats but she did not return in the night and could not be traced. The informant presumed that his daughter -in -law might have gone to her parental home. It was conspicuous that the appellants were also absent from the village since then. On 11.2.99 the appellants returned back to their village and on interrogation the informant gathered that the appellant Jai Krishna Mandal and one Shankar Singh of Village Gangta had kidnapped Rita Devi and she was confined in the village Maheshadih within the District of Banka. The appellants Jai Krishna Mandal and Munna Das appellants then were apprehended and confined in a school and thereafter the informant filed a written report giving rise to Godda(M) PS. Case No. 65/99 for the offence under Section 366A/34 I.P.C. against three accused persons including the appellants. The police after investigation submitted charge -sheet against the appellants showing the another accused Shankar Singh absconder. The informant Rita Devi was rescued in course of investigation and on the basis of her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the offence under Section 376 I.P. C. was introduced besides under Section 366 I.P.C.

(3.) FINALLY Mr. Jha submitted that the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution said to be the material witnesses are none but the near relatives of the informant who are highly interested and inimical to the appellants and therefore, the evidence of such witnesses were no scrutinized by the trial court in its right perspective.