Dwarika Mahto, Prasanna Mahto and Mahitosh Mahto vs The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and Khagen Mahto

R.K. Merathia, J.—By Court: This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.06.2000 passed by the learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1995 / 211 of 1995 convicting the Appellants under Sections 366(A)/34 and 368/34 Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for nine years u/s 366(A)/34 Indian Penal Code and R.I. for seven years u/s 368/34 Indian Penal Code. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, submitted that the main accused in this case is Umesh Mahto who has been released after serving out the sentence and the Appellants were involved in this case only because the Appellant No. 1-Dwarika Mahto happens to be the father of Umesh Mahto and Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 Prasanna Mahto and Mahitosh Mahto happens to be relatives of Umesh Mahto and they are alleged to have assisted Umesh Mahto in committing the crime by confining the victim-Chhaya Kumari Mahto, a minor girl, and coercing her to marry Umesh Mahto and not producing Umesh Mahto and victim-Chhaya Kumari Mahto before the panchayati. He further submitted that in any event, the Appellant No. 1-Dwarika Mahto may be about 66 years of age by now and Appellant No. 2-Prasanna Mahto may be about 71 years of age by now and the Appellants have suffered this prosecution since 1993. He further submitted that the ingredients of Sections 366(A) and 368 Indian Penal Code are not made out, so far as these Appellants are concerned.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment.

After hearing the parties and going through the records carefully, it appears that the main allegations were against the co-convict Umesh Mahto and there is no allegation against these Appellants for committing crime under Sections 366(A) and 368 Indian Penal Code, rather the allegation against them is that they assisted the main accused. The only allegation against the Appellants is that after alleged abduction of the victim by co-convict Umesh Mahto, they provided money and food to Umesh Mahto and victim Chhaya Kumari Mahto and they did not disclose about their whereabouts and did not produce them before the Panchayati.

In these circumstances, in my opinion, the Appellants deserve the benefit of doubt as the prosecution has not fully proved it''s case beyond all reasonable doubts.

In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as passed by the trial court against the Appellants under Sections 366(A)/34 and 368/34 Indian Penal Code, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are acquitted of the charges. The Appellants are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.