Ajay Kumar Tiwari vs The State of Bihar

Anjana Prakash, J.—Appellant has been convicted u/s 366 IPC and sentenced to RI for five years by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in S.Tr. No. 351 of 1992/01 of 1993 by a judgment dated 05.07.1994.

The case of the prosecution is that on 10.05.1992 one Nandvir Tiwari and Asha Devi took away the wife of the informant who did not return and thereafter she was informant who did not return and thereafter she was recovered along with the Appellant on 01.06.1992.

The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is on the point that he had seen the victim going along with the co-accused Nandvir Tiwari and Asha Devi and later the husband of the victim told him that she had been sold off. P.W. 2 is the Doctor who examined the victim and found her aged about 19 years. P.W. 3 is the sister-in-law of the victim and merely on the point that she was taken away by co-accused Nandvir Tiwari and having heard that Asha Devi sold to the Appellant. P.W. 5 is the mother of the informant who is also on the same point. P.W. 6 is hearsay that the mother of the informant had told him about the occurrence. P.W. 7 is the informant who is also on the point that his wife had been sold off to the Appellant. P.W. 8 is the Investigating Officer who stated that he recovered the victim along with the Appellant.

On going through the analysis of the evidence, I find that there is complete want of any evidence to sustain the conviction of the Appellant u/s 366 IPC since the victim herself has not been examined who alone could have testified as to whether she had been kidnapped and sold off to the Appellant. The rest of the witnesses are merely hearsay and their evidence is based on speculation or on the point of the alleged victim going with the co-accused person. The material of victim''s recovery with the Appellant in the circumstances of her being about 19 years of age has no meaning and no offence u/s 366 IPC is made out in the facts of the case.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 05.07.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in S.Tr. No. 351 of 1992/01 of 1993 is set aside. The Appellant is discharged of the liability of his bail bond.