Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1584 (JHR)

Mana Keot v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-14

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2009
JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.5.2002 passed by Shri Abhay Shankar Mishra, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1998, by which judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant, Mana Keot guilty for the offence under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it will appear from the submission in the F.I.R. as well as the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that there was a love affair between the accused and the girl, due to which, this occurrence took place. Subsequently, during trial the victim girl, P.W. 4 has denied that there was any love affair between them and supported the informant's version stated in court that she was kept by the accused at Dumka and taken to Tarapith where he forced the girl to marry him. In the cross-examination, she stated about the lover affair. In that view of the matter, benefit may be given to the appellant since the appellant is young aged about 26 years. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that in spite of warning and rebukes given by the informant's family and victim's brother, Shyam Kumar Pandey, the accused, Mana Keot, by force, kidnapped the victim girl, and as such, he has rightly been convicted. 4. After hearing both the parties and after going through the records, I find that the prosecution was started on the basis of F.I.R. given by the father of the victim girl, Gopal Pandey that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 11.2.1997 at about 8 P.M. in the night, when his daughter, Veenita Kumari, aged about 15 years, who is a student of Class-IX at Karharbil High School went out for urination and did not return after ten minutes, then he went outside the house with a torch and in the light of torch, he saw that the accused, Mana Keot was taking his daughter by force. He and his son chased the accused but could not succeed in stopping them. 5. He and his son chased the accused but could not succeed in stopping them. 5. On the basis of F.I.R. police registered a case under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge-sheet. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial and subsequently, the case was tried by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka and framed the charges and lastly the trial concluded before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka and passed the aforesaid judgment and convicted the appellant. 6. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record in the trial, I find that the prosecution has examined seven witnesses : P.W. 1 is Gopal Pandey (Father of the victim girl). P.W. 2 is Draupadi Devi (Mother of the victim girl). P.W. 3 is Shyam Kumar Pandey (Brother of the victim girl). . P.W. 4 is Veenita Kumari (the Victim girl). P.W. 5 is Dr. Radha Gupta. P.W. 6 is Dr. Sushil Marandi. P.W. 7 is Gautam Kumar Singh (1.0. of the case). 7. P.W. 1, Gopal Pandey and P.W. 2, Draupadi Devi both have supported the prosecution case given in the F.I.R. and stated that on 11.2.1997 at about 8 P.M. In the night, when their daughter, Veenita Kumari had gone out for urination and she did not return within 15 minutes, then with a torch, they saw in the night that the accused, Mana Keot and his brother Vishnu Keot were dragging their daughter. They chased the accused person, but could not succeed. Then, they lodged the F.I.R.. in the Muffasil Police Station. P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that about 10-15 days before, his son was assaulted by Mana Keot, the accused and Vishnu Keot, the brother of the accused, since, he asked him to keep away from his sister. P.W. 1 stated that his daughter was aged about 15 years and she is a student of Class-IX at Karharbil High School. P.W. 2, Draupadi Devi, the mother of the victim girl has also stated that the girl was aged about 15 years and she is a student of class-IX. P.W.3. P.W. 1 stated that his daughter was aged about 15 years and she is a student of Class-IX at Karharbil High School. P.W. 2, Draupadi Devi, the mother of the victim girl has also stated that the girl was aged about 15 years and she is a student of class-IX. P.W.3. Shyam Kumar Pandey, the brother of the victim girl also supported the prosecution case and stated that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 11.2.1997 at about 8 P.M. When his sister went out for urination and did not return within 15 minutes, then, they went out with a torch and saw that the accused, Mana Keot and Vishnu Keot were dragging his sister. They could not stop them. Then, they lodged the F.I.R. 8. The victim girl was examined as P.W. 4 and stated that on 11.2.1997, when she went out of her house for urination, then suddenly the accused caught hold of her and by force took her away from her house. She was kept in the night at a 'shiv temple' at Kurwa Pahar. Then, she was taken to Tarapith temple and she was forced to marry him in spite of her protest. Thereafter, she kept up for 20-21 days at Saithiya, then, she was brought to Dumka and thereafter, the accused went at Dumka Court and surrendered. Then, she was brought back to her house from the court by her parents. She denied that she had ever written love letter to the accused, Mana Keot, but she admitted that she ever known the accused. She admitted that her statement was given in the Court under Section 164 Cr.P .C. She also stated that she is aged about 16 years. 9. The victim girl was examined by the doctor P.W. 5, Dr. Radha Gupta, who found that the victim girl is aged about 13-15 years on the basis of the X-ray report and her assessment and bone Oestification, her report was marked at Ext.-2. The doctor P.W. 6, Dr. Sushil Marandi, who proved the X-ray report as Ext.-2/1 as stated that the victim girl was aged about 13-15 years. 10. Radha Gupta, who found that the victim girl is aged about 13-15 years on the basis of the X-ray report and her assessment and bone Oestification, her report was marked at Ext.-2. The doctor P.W. 6, Dr. Sushil Marandi, who proved the X-ray report as Ext.-2/1 as stated that the victim girl was aged about 13-15 years. 10. Gautam Kumar Singh, the Investigating Officer, P.W. 7 was examined in court and he has proved the fardbeyan as Ext.-3, the formal F.I.R. as Ext.-4 and he has also proved the place of occurrence and stated after obtaining the medical report that the girl is aged about 13-15 years which shows that she is minor, and thereafter, he submitted charge-sheet in the case. 11. From the evidence as discussed above, it is clear that the victim girl was minor aged about 13-17 years on the date of occurrence and she was under the influence of the accused, Mana Keot, who kidnapped her from her house and took her to Tarapith and by force he married her. However, from the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. given by the victim girl after her recovery on 6.3.1997, it appears that there was some love affairs between both the accused and the victim and she has gone out at her own will and she denied in the court the matter stated before. 12. In that view of the matter, although, the victim is a minor girl and she also stated that she was kidnapped by force and the conviction of the appellant under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed, however, considering the fact that both the accused and the victim girl were young boy and girl and the victim girl voluntarily left the house under the influence of the accused, the conviction of the appellant for six years rigorous imprisonment seems to be too much, and hence, the conviction of the appellant is altered to that of the period which is about seven and a half months in custody during trial and after conviction in custody and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and if the fine is not paid, in default, the appellant will go for one year simple imprisonment and if realised a sum of Rs. 4,000/- will be given to the father of the victim girl, the informant, P.W. 1 (Gopal Pandey). 13. 5,000/-, and if the fine is not paid, in default, the appellant will go for one year simple imprisonment and if realised a sum of Rs. 4,000/- will be given to the father of the victim girl, the informant, P.W. 1 (Gopal Pandey). 13. With the aforesaid alteration in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.