Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1385 (PAT)

Nageshwari Devi v. State of Bihar

2013-12-05

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. All the appellants have been convicted under Section 366, IPC whereas appellants No. 2 and 3 have been sentenced to R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default of which further R.I. for six months and the appellant No. 3 has been sentenced to S.I. for six months by a judgment dated 21.1.2002 and 22.1.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 333 of 1990. 2. The case of the prosecution according to informant Prabhash Jha is that about a month back his minor sister Putan @ Sudha Kumari, aged about 8 years, had been sent to his brother-in-law through his cousin sister Lukho Devi as the said Lukho Devi was coming to his sasural. His other cousin sister was living at village Rajaura and, as such the said Lukho Devi was instructed by her brother-in-law to get the victim carried to her destination. However, his sister was not sent there and instead they abducted her for purpose of marriage to Ram Bhujawan appellant No. 2. She was subsequently recovered. 3. During trial the prosecution examined four witnesses in all. Out of whom, PW 1 Ram Naresh Jha happens to be the father of the victim, who stated that his daughter had been sent to his elder daughter Anita accompanied by Lukho Devi but she instead of taking her to Anita, took her to her own sister and leaving her there she went to her own sasural. Then Ram Briksha took the victim to Tetri where they faced some sort of tremble in getting the victim and the police was informed, after which she was recovered. He stated that the victim was aged about 8-9 years at the time of occurrence. He could not however say as to from where or whose possession his daughter had been recovered. 4. PW 2 Gajendra Jha is the uncle of the victim but he has been declared hostile. 5. PW 3, the victim girl, has not supported the prosecution case and she denied that she had been married. She denied that she was either seduced or abducted. 6. PW 4 Prabhash Jha is the informant, who stated that his sister the victim, was taken to Rajwara by her cousin sister Lukho Devi. When he reached Rajwara, he was informed that the victim had gone to Tetri for some ceremony. She denied that she was either seduced or abducted. 6. PW 4 Prabhash Jha is the informant, who stated that his sister the victim, was taken to Rajwara by her cousin sister Lukho Devi. When he reached Rajwara, he was informed that the victim had gone to Tetri for some ceremony. It was Devendra Singh who had taken her to Tetri and the victim was thereafter married to appellant Ram Bujhawan Sharma. 7. Evidently all these aspects of these allegations have been denied by the victim in her first person account. Hence, I would be of the opinion that there is complete paucity of any evidence to sustain the conviction of the appellants. 8. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 21.1.2002 and 22.1.2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Begusarai in Sessions Trial No. 333 of 1990 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Appeal allowed.