Sunil Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 15.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 16.05.2006 passed by Sri Alok Kumar

Dubey, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2nd, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2005., whereby and whereunder the

appellant has been charged under Sections 366 and 366A/34 of the I.P.C and convicted for the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. and sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (03) years.

The FIR has been lodged on the statement of the informant namely Yogeshwar Badaik (P.W.-7). As per the FIR Sumati Kumari (P.W.-3) the

daughter of the informant aged about 13 years student of Class-X in Lakrakhanda School, has gone to study along with her friend namely Sangita

Kumari (P.W.-2) on 18.09.2004. When she did not return till 6-7 P.M. then her parents searched for her but they could not find her. On the next day

i.e. 19.09.2004 when they did not found her, then Sangita Kumari (P.W.-2) came and informed that Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Ranjan resident

of Quarter No.4-155 along with Sunil, Majhar and Gulam has kidnapped Sumati Kumari. Suspicion has been shown that Mukesh Kumar Singh @

Mukesh Ranjan has kidnapped his daughter for the purpose of marriage. On the said information the case has been registered as B.S. City P.S. Case

No.240 of 2004 on 20.09.2004 under Sections 366 and 366 (A) of the Indian Panel Code.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted against the present appellant and Mukesh Kumar Singh @ Mukesh Ranjan

under Sections 366/366A/34 of the Indian Panel Code. Cognizance was taken and charge had been framed under above sections. The case was

committed to the Court of Sessions to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To substantiate the prosecution story, altogether 8 witnesses have been examined.

P.W.1-Dr. Rosy Shankar is the doctor who has examined the victim and found no sign of any sexual intercourse. As per radiological report she has

opined that the age of the girl is less than 18 years.

P.W.2-Sangita Kumari upon whose information the FIR has been lodged. She has been declared hostile.

P.W.3-Sumati Kumari is the victim lady. She has been declared hostile.

P.W.4-Parwati Devi is the elder sister of the victim. She has also been declared hostile.

P.W.5-Leo Kandolana has also been declared hostile.

P.W.6-Yasoda Devi is mother of the victim girl. She has also been declared hostile.

P.W.7-Yogeshwar Badaik is father of the victim. He has also been declared hostile.

P.W.8-Vinay Kumar Sinha is the I.O. of the case and upon whose testimony, the appellant has been convicted under Section 363 of the I.P.C.

After perusing the evidence available on record, the court below has found that prosecution has failed to prove the story of kidnapping for the

purpose of marriage and accordingly the appellant has been discharged from the charged sections except under Section 363 of the I.P.C. As per

prosecution story disclosed in the FIR and testimony of the P.W.3-Sumati Kumari (victim), she has gone with Mukesh Kumar Singh who is her

school-mate.

Be as it may for constituting the offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C., the necessary ingredients is consent of the guardian, if a minor is taken

out without the consent of legal guardian then the offence is made out. In the present case the legal guardian has been declared hostile. They have not

supported the prosecution story that the girl has been taken out without their consent. The victim girl has stated that she had gone by her own will

without being enticed by the present appellant.

Considering the entire material available on record and the discussion made above, this Court finds that there is no evidence on record justifying the

conviction of the appellant under Section 363 of the I.P.C. Accordingly the appellant is discharged from above section, and the judgment of conviction

dated 15.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 16.05.2006 passed by Sri Alok Kumar Dubey, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court

No.2nd, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2005 is, hereby, set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is, hereby, allowed.

Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.