Bhumesh @ Bhumeshwari Mehta vs The State of Bihar

Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellant has been convicted u/s 364 I.P.C and sentenced to R.I. for seven years by a judgment dated 5.9.1994 passed by the VII Ith Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 1993.

The prosecution case is that on 2.9.1992 the informant''s daughter, namely, Sudha Kumari, aged about 5-6 years became traceless and while they were looking for her, they approached the Appellant, who demanded Rs. 5000/- for release of the daughter. The case was instituted on 16.9.1992 even though the alleged occurrence took place on 2.9.1992.

During trial, the prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.6 is the informant and P.W.7 is his wife, whereas P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence that the Appellant was seen with his girl going on a bicycle. P.w.5 is tendered and P.W.9 is formal. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.2 on the point of demand of money by the Appellant.

It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that this occurrence was reported after much delay and it does not stand to reason that even though the Appellant was seen going on a bicycle with the alleged victim no report about the same was made at an earlier instance. The further submission is that the entire case is based merely on speculation that the Appellant had kidnapped the victim even though the ingredient of kidnapping was not satisfied.

On going through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4, I find that indeed they have deposed that they had seen the Appellant going on the bicycle with the alleged victim but even though the informant was looking for this girl right from the date of the occurrence, no information about kidnapping was given to the Police Station at that point in time which makes the story of kidnapping doubtful. Further the fact that the Appellant was demanding Rs. 5000/- from the informant for returning the girl also is not trustworthy in view of the fact that despite there being cogent proof of the Appellant having indulged in kidnapping even at that stage no effort was made to inform the police or any authority for that matter.

In view of the discussions above, I am inclined to allow the appeal. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant on 5.9.1994 by the VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 1993 is set aside.