Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1396 (PAT)

Kaaju Kumar Mondal v. State of Bihar

2013-12-06

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 366-A and 376, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for ten years under each count by a judgment dated 29.11.2001 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 2001. 2. The case of the informant Devendra Choudhary is that his brother Jitendra Choudhary and the appellant were friends, on account of which he used to often visit his house. On 25.12.1998 the appellant was sleeping in the house of the informant, whereafter the sister of the informant went missing. They started searching her out and went to the house of the appellant, who was also found missing from his house. It was then suspected that the appellant had fled away with the victim to contract marriage with her. 3. The defence of the appellant was that in fact there was love affairs between the two and this case has been set up only because it was not liked by the informant and his family. The defence also produced two letters Exhibit 2 series, which were written by the victim to the appellant to bring on record the relationship between the two. In fact on the date of occurrence he was taking the victim to his sister's house with her consent and had not kidnapped her. 4. The prosecution to prove its case examined seven witnesses in all. The victim has been examined as PW 4, who stated that on the night of occurrence the appellant was sleeping in his house. In the night she went to him, after which he lured her into the fields where he committed sexual assault upon her. Then the appellant took her and kept her in a room at Bariyarpur where the neighbours informed the police, upon which she was recovered. It was suggested to her that in fact she had planned the entire incident with the appellant and left out of will to which he denied. She stated that on account of fear she did not raise a commotion on the train. She stated that her age was 16 years on the date of examination. 5. PW7, the doctor, examined the victim and stated that she was less than 18 years of age. 6. She stated that on account of fear she did not raise a commotion on the train. She stated that her age was 16 years on the date of examination. 5. PW7, the doctor, examined the victim and stated that she was less than 18 years of age. 6. On behalf of the appellant, six witnesses were also examined, out of which D.W.1, D.W.2 and D.W.3 are co-villagers and that the appellant's family and the informant were friends and the victim had left with the appellant with her own sweet will. They also stated that the victim was more than 20 years of age. 7. From the evidence of the witnesses, I find that a reasonable doubt has been created in the mind of the Court as to whether the appellant had in fact kidnapped the victim or it was a case of consent. In view of the consistent evidence of the defence witnesses, which suggests otherwise, I would be inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. 8. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 29.11.2001 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No. 178 of 2001 is set aside. The appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.