KAMAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOLE appellant Kamal Singh stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 1997.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that informant Shakuntala Mahto was getting paddy seeds uprooted in the morning of 29.7.1996 when Lakhi Mahto and Sheo Shankar Mahto, known criminals of the area, arrived there and took her away forcibly. The informant was threatened to be killed by both the named accused, dragged towards forest and in spite of her raising alarms, no one came to her rescue. Thereafter the informant was subjected to rape by both of them in the forest and lastly brought to the house of the appellant situated in Mauza -Tunguru, Police Station - Patamada. According to informant, the appellant was asked by both of them to keep the lady who was only eye witness of the murder of her husband committed by them to be killed later on. She further asserted that the appellant thereafter brought chicken for both of them and fed them. In the meantime, police alongwith villagers arrived at the house of the appellant at about 5.00 P.M.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred only by the appellant as Sheo Shankar Mahto has remained in custody throughout. The main points raised in this memo of appeal are that the learned trial court has committed mistake by holding the appellant guilty under Section 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is asserted that kidnapping of the informant was done by Sheo Shankar Mahto and Lakhi Mahto and the appellant has not played any part in that commission of kidnapping. It is also asserted that when the informant was recovered from the house of the appellant, she was found sitting at the verandah. Therefore, the question of confinement does not arise. According to Mr. A.K. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and even the informant has not alleged anything against the appellant in this connection. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 364/34 of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable and deserves to be set aside.