Sriman Marandi vs The State of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar, J.—This appeal is directed Against the judgment of conviction dated 7.8.2001 and order of sentence dated 9.8 2001 passed by Situ B.B. Mangal Murti, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 21 of 1997 arising out of Kundahit-Patehpur P.S. case No. 23 of 1996 whereby and where nuclei the appellant. Sriman Marandi has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 366 of the IPC 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 IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

It appears that the prosecution case was started on the basis of the FIR. filed by the informant, Mithila Hembrum daughter of late Raja Hembrum of village Agoyian P.S. Fatehpur, Disl. 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 m 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 1/2 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 ease was tried Alter the trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is a long delay of two months in lodging the F.I.R. winch has not been properly explained by the prosecution and hence the entire story has been created only to falsely implicate the appellant Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellant is bad in law and lit to be set aside It is submitted that after the death of her father when she came to the house, then since her mother was against the marriage with the appellant, Sriman Marandi, at her instance, the case was lodged. Hence the prosecution case is not believable and the same is fit to be set aside

On the other hand, teamed 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.

5 Alter hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel for the state and after going through the evidences on record. I find that in course of trial the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses to prove the charges.

R.W.1 is Ramdhan Kisku. He has stated that the occurrence took place two years back in the month of January at about 9.a.m. in the morning. He was at his home when he saw that Mithila Hembrum is being taken by two boys Sriman Marandi took her to his house. Another accused, Nalin Hembrum was also with him. She went to the house of Sriman Marandi. He cannot say whether the victim was weeping or not during her stay in the house of the appellant for 1 1/2 months since within this 1 1/2 months, the appellant took the victim to Dumka, Jamtara and got signature on some document. Subsequently. Mithila Hembnim escaped and came to her house and filed this case He has stated that Sriman Marandi wanted to marry her by force.

P.W.2 is Kanhai Murmu. He has stated that the occurrence look place two years back. He heard the Mithila Hembrum was taken h Sriman Marandi and Nalin Hembrum for Dumka an Jamtara for marrying with her. He identified the accused Sriman Marandi in the court

P.W.3 is Sonamuni Murmu. She has stated that the occurrence look place 1 1/2 years back She had fight with Srinman Marandi Her daughter was a student of Jamtara College and she had come to her house then Sriman Marandi and Nalin Hembrum took her to some unknown destination. They kept the girl for two months After two months the girl came to her house and told about the occurrence When Sriman Marandi asked her to withdraw the case, then she lodged this case In her cross examination she had stated that her daughter was student of B.A. From Fatehpur Bazar her daughter was kidnapped by the accused. There is police station at Fatehpur Bazar. Subsequently, she asked a boy namely Shubash to bring the girl but, the occurrence. She made information in the (sic) examination in para 3, she staed that Sriman Marandi belongs to her village, but he had not kept her daughter in the village. Where her daughter was kept, she does not know.

P.W.4 is Mithila Hembrum, the victim and information of the case. She has stated that the occurrence took place in January 1996 at 9 am. She had gone to the tank. Then Sriman Marandi and his father Sundar Marandi came there and asked her to marry with Sriman Marandi. When she refused, then they took her by force to their house and kept her there in the house. They were also asking her to withdraw the previous case lodged against Sriman Marandi which is a rape case and which is still pending. She was brought to Dumka where she signed on some paper by force. She was also taken to Jamtara. There also she had signed some paper. Thereafter, again the accused brought her back to their house where she lived for 15 days. One day getting opportunity, she escaped to her father''s house Her lather died in an accident and subsequently, when the Investigating Officer came she gave information about the case, During cross examination her matriculation admit car was produced which she admitted to be her admit card which is marked as ext A. She admitted that in her admit card, her age is shown as 2.1.1973. She also admitted that she has signed on the affidavit dated 7.8.1996, produced by the defence, but she has not compromised her case and on this compromise petition her signature was taken by force On tins document Sriman Marandi had also signed She has stated dun her age is 23 years 8 month and she is student of B.A. Part-II. She denied that she ever stated that she has compromised the ease with the accused and she is living with him after marriage as a wife. In her cross examination in para 6, she has stated that village Agoiyan is of 100 houses village and Fatehpur police station is also 3-4 mile away She has stated that Sriman Marandi lives in her village and she knows him from the beginning. On the date of occurrence she had gone to the pokhar for easing which is on the side of her house. Nobody was there. At the pokhar only she was caught by the accused. She made sound of hulla, but nobody came. At para 8 she has stated that house of Sriman Marandi is at a distance of 1 km from her house. She had made hulla on the way also, but nobody came At the time of occurrence, at her house, her father, mother and brother were there She stayed in the house of Sriman Marandi for 10-15 days Thereafter, she came to her house. Within these 15 days persons from her fathers house came to the house of Sriman Marandi, but she had not talked with them. When she came back to her house from the house of Sriman Marandi, then she talked to the people. She also stated that from the house of Sriman Marandi she had gone to Dumka. Jamtara and then again came and stayed in his house. At Jamtara she stated nothing to the officer- in charge or to the police. At para 11 she staled that on Friday a hatia take place at Fatehur and there is police station at Fatehpur. but she had given her statement at her house to the police

P.W.5 Seodhar Rain is the Investigating Officer of the case and he has stated that on 8.3.1996 he recorded the statement of Mithila Hembrum at her house. On the basis of the said fardbeyan, he registered F.I.R. and proved the F.I.R as ext.2. He also proved the endorsement of the officer- in charge of the police station. He investigated the case and submitted chargesheet in the case Nothing special was asked from him.

P.W.6 is Kailash Chandra Mallah who is a formal witness and proved formal F.I.R. as ext.3.

Thus, after going through the prosecution evidence, I find that there is contradiction as far as the place of kidnapping is concerned PW3. mother of the victim has stated in para 2 that the victim was kidnapped from Fatehpur Bazar and thereafter, she only asked one Shubhash to call back the girl , but the accused and other refused to send her back and thereafter, she informed the police and kept mum for two months. No earlier F.I.R. has been brought on record. On the contrary the victim girl P.W.4 has stated that she was kidnapped from the pokhar which is by the side of her house and she was taken to the house of the accused Sriman Marandi, where she stayed for 15 days. She has stated that her house is just near the pokhar and the house of the accused is at a distance of I km from the pokhar Members of the house of her father came to the house of Sriman Marandi, but, she did not talk to them and stayed there for 15 days and also went to Dumka and met lawyer, where she was asked to sign some paper. She made no complaint to the lawyer and subsequently she was taken to Jamtara. She made no complaint to the officer- in charge or the police at Jamtara She came back and again stayed for 15 days at the house of Sriman Marandi. It shows that she was living with him with her own sweet will as she has admitted at the tune of cross examination that she was major aged about 23 1/2 years P.W.1. the neighbour has stated that she made no hulla and he saw her going with Sriman Marandi.

In that view of the matter, the prosecution case that she was kidnapped by force and she was forced to sign some documents at Dumka and also at Jamtara becomes doubtful. The entire conduct of the informant is doubtful. If, she was kidnapped, then why no F.I.R. was lodged immediately by her parents two months back. She was living just 1 km away from her own house and member of her father''s house were also visiting the house of Sriman Marandi where she stayed for 15 days. Thus, her entire examination and cross examination makes the prosecution case doubtful and the accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt.

In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below is set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. Since, the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.