Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 160 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Ranjeet Thakur

2013-02-04

MANDHATA SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.-Prosecution case initiated on statement of Uma Kant Choudhary PW 5. in brief. is that on 6.11.2004 at about 9.00 a.m. his daughter Bhawani Kumari aged about 14 years proceeded for Jitwaria High School to appear in matriculation test examination as usual on foot from her house but did not return in evening. 2. Informant began to search her in that course he could know that one Praween Kumar had taken her on his motorcycle. On interrogation he reported that he took his daughter to Nawabganj only thereafter she proceeded towards school. 3. Informant was confident that his daughter was kidnapped by this Praween Kumar under a conspiracy with some others for some ulterior motive. Delay has also been explained as his daughter was being searched for two days. 4. Trial commenced with framing of charge in the case which ended in acquittal of the accused respondent by passing the impugned judgment. validity of which has been questioned through filing this Govt. appeal. 5. In all 11 witnesses are examined in the case on behalf of prosecution and they are PW 1 Ratneshwar Choudhary, PW 2 Devendra Choudhary, PW 3 Amresh Kumar Choudhary, PW 4 Bhawani Kumari victim of the case herself, PW 5 Uma Kant Choudhary informant of the case, PW 6 Serna Devi, PW 7 Shambhu Prasad Choudhary, PW 8 Lalita Devi, PW 9 Dr. Sudha Verma, PW 10 Jagata Nand Thakur I.O. of the case and PW 11 Sanjay Kumar a form witness. 6. Three witnesses are examined on behalf of defence also. They are D.W.1 Akhilesh Thakur, D.W.2 Surendra Thakur and D.W.3 Bablu Thakur. 7. Some of the facts are not disputed and have corroboration of the prosecution witnesses also. They are disappearance of the victim girl PW 4 since 6.11.2004 till her recovery in the case on 6.12.2004. She was going to appear in test matriculation examination, a lift was given to her by one Praween Kumar to some distance towards school. She is recovered from Panjabi Colony, Samastipur from the house of Bhuneshwar Pandey. 8. Age of the victim and kidnapping or abduction by accused respondent is only in dispute. On the point of age no evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence, so, the prosecution is there only to state the age of victim girl. She is recovered from Panjabi Colony, Samastipur from the house of Bhuneshwar Pandey. 8. Age of the victim and kidnapping or abduction by accused respondent is only in dispute. On the point of age no evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence, so, the prosecution is there only to state the age of victim girl. They are of three kinds; first, oral evidence, second documentary evidence (school register) and third medical opinion. PWs 1, 5 and 6 are there to state the date of birth of victim girl March, 1988. PW 8 is stating the year only that is 1988. School register is exhibited in the case as Ext. 5, 5/1 mentioning the date of birth 30.1.1988. PW 9 is a doctor who has examined the victim girl and in her opinion the age of victim girl was in between 18 1/2 year to 19 years. Which of the date of births is acceptable could be a matter of dispute but all have been adduced and submitted by the prosecution. So, it is option of the accused to accept any of them. Age determined by the doctor has been opted and accepted by the defence and accepted rightly by the Court in holding major at the time of occurrence. 9. Now next point in controversy is the kidnapping or abduction if any was committed by accused respondent. 10. PWs 1. 2. 3.4. 5. 6. 7 and 8 are there to state the kidnapping or abduction by accused respondent but none of them is eye-witness of the fact of kidnapping or abduction save and except PW 4 victim of the case. Being their version hearsay not acceptable on the point Now Victim remains to discuss apart from her recovery from the house of Bhuneshwar Pandey of Punjabi Colony. Samastipur. In her statement in Court she is stating about her coming on motorcycle of one Praween Kumar near Jeetwaria College Mor where an Ambassador car was standing. she was forcibly taken to car. taken to Punjabi Colony. Samastipur and was kept there for a month but this much was not her statement under Section 161 Of Code of Criminal Procedure or under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure rather a different story. Appearing of the above statement for the first time in Court has rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court. 11. taken to Punjabi Colony. Samastipur and was kept there for a month but this much was not her statement under Section 161 Of Code of Criminal Procedure or under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure rather a different story. Appearing of the above statement for the first time in Court has rightly been disbelieved by the trial Court. 11. Same is the position of presence of accused respondent in the room from where she was recovered. on this point though she is stating about presence of this accused respondent but for the first time in Court only. This much is not stated earlier before the I.O. and PW 10 I.O. of the case is stating that she (victim) was alone in the room on a bed and this accused respondent was on road. This much is the statement on the point of kidnapping or abduction of the victim girl not sufficient for establishing involvement of accused respondent. Matter was of love affair or not could be a further matter to be discussed but once involvement does not appear that aspect needs no discussion. So, the finding of trial Court on the point of love letter is being ignored as unnecessary. All the areas covering involvement of accused respondent is well discussed by the trial Court in recording acquittal in its judgment need no interference. 12. Govt. Appeal as well as Cr. Revision is dismissed accordingly. Govt. Appeal Revision dismissed.