SRIMAN MARANDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed Against the judgment of conviction dated 7.8.2001 and order of sentence dated 9.8.2001 passed by Shri B.B.Mangal Murti, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No.21 of 1997 arising out of Kundahit-Fatehpur P.S. case no. 23 of 1996 whereby and where under the appellant, Sriman Marandi has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 366 of the I.P.C. and further sentence of one year R.I. u/s 342 of the I.P.C. and three years R.I. u/s 384 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) IT appears that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the F.I.R. filed by the informant, Mithila Hembrum, daughter of late Raja Hembrum of village Agoyian P.S. Fatehpur, Dist. Dumka recorded by S.I. T.P.Singh on 8.3.1996 stating therein that two months back at 9 a.m. when she had gone to the Pokhar which is north to her house, the accused Sriman Marandi S/o Surendra Marandi came and asked her to withdraw the case and be ready to marry with him. On her refusal, he forcefully took her away and kept in the house in the night and induces her for the marriage. Next day she was taken to Dumka and Jamtara before a Lawyer and she was forced to sign some paper which she did. Thereafter, she was kept in the house for ten days in confinement, but she refused to make any relationship with him as Husband and Wife. After 1 = months she managed to escape and narrated the event to her family members and neighbour. Subsequently, due to death of her father she could not report the matter to the police. After investigation charge sheet was submitted upon this appellant and since the case was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, hence, the case was committed to the court of sessions where charges were framed and the case was tried. After the trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the state has opposed the prayer and submitted that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been fully explained because the death of the father of the victim girl caused the delay and the allegation of the prosecution that she was forcibly taken to the lawyer where she signed some documents has been proved by the defence, since, they produced the said documents and the prosecution case has been fully proved and accordingly the conviction and sentence passed by the court is based on good reason and requires no interference from the court.