Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1065 (JHR)

Manoj Pandey v. State of Jharkhand

2011-12-05

PRASHANT KUMAR, R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.9.2001 and 24.9.2001 respectively passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 362 of 1997 convicting the appellants under Sections 364- A and 365 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 5000/- each. failing which to undergo S.I. for two years under Section 364-A, IPC. and to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 365 of IPC and to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to undergo S.I. for one year. However, the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short is that PW 4 Hari Prasad. grandfather of victim (Sarika Kumari).lodged a fardbeyan on 29.11.1996 that on 21.10.1996 after conclusion of navratra puja her grand-daughter Sarika Kumari (victim) aged about 18 years was missing from the house. The family members tried to find her out. The appellant Manoj Pandey also eloped. but he came after two days and said that there was no need to lodge case etc. and if he perform Puja, Sarika will return. Thereafter he started making phone calls. for the said purpose, On inquiry, the informant learnt that Manoj Pandey was a fraud person. On inquiry, appellant No.1 asked Rs. 31,000/-as Dakshina for bringing back the victim girl. When the informant party showed their inability to pay the amount. Manoj Pandey told that in lieu of money, jewellery can be given, which can be returned when cash is paid. It is further alleged that appellant No.2. Karu Pandey, the relative of , appellant No.1, impressed that Manoj Pandey is a saint having divine powers. Due to fear of bad name in the society, the case was not lodged immediately. When the informant party learnt that the victim was in Dadpur, they went and lodged this FIR at Akbarpur Police Station. They also brought appellant No. 2 Karu Pandey with them. 3. The prosecution examined five witnesses PW 1 Amar Kumar Sao is the uncle of victim. PW 2 Rajendra Prasad Sao is the father of the victim, PW 3 Kalawati Devi is the mother of victim, PW 4 is the informant, PW 5 Ashok Kumar. ASI posted at Akbarpur Police Station where the FIR was lodged. He is a formal witness. The prosecution examined five witnesses PW 1 Amar Kumar Sao is the uncle of victim. PW 2 Rajendra Prasad Sao is the father of the victim, PW 3 Kalawati Devi is the mother of victim, PW 4 is the informant, PW 5 Ashok Kumar. ASI posted at Akbarpur Police Station where the FIR was lodged. He is a formal witness. It appears that the I.O. has not been examined in this case due to paralysis. It further appears that the victim is traceless till today. 4. Mr. R.K Singh, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the ingredients of alleged sections are not made out in this case. He further submitted that there is unexplained delay of more than a month in lodging the FIR. He lastly submitted that in any event, the appellants have remained in custody for about 15 years by now. 5. On the other hand, Mrs. Niki Sinha, State counsel supported the impugned judgment. 6. After hearing the parties at length and perusing the records carefully, in our opinion the ingredients of alleged sections are not made out in this Case. The statements of all the witnesses is to the effect that Sarika went on her own, to see puja from the house PW 1 said that Sarika went alone to see puja. PW 2 said that she went with her mother to see puja PW 3 said that she went to see Puja along with one Rekha, and that Rekha returned. but Sarika did not return. Rekha was an important witness, but she has not been examined in this case. The prosecution case about making phone calls by appellant Manoj Pandey is also based on suspicion only and nothing has been brought on record in support thereof. The age of victim has also not been clearly established. The delay of about 5 weeks in lodging the FIR has also not been explained properly. In the circumstance, we have no option than to acquit the appellants from the charges levelled against them. 7. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellants are directed to be released from jail forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Appeal allowed.