Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1001 (JHR)

Kanhai Pandit v. State of Jharkhand

2015-08-20

P.P.BHATT, VIRENDER SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT : Per Virender Singh, C.J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant Kanhai Pandit against the acquittal earned by private respondent nos. 2 to 4 vide impugned judgment dated 9th October, 2012 handed down by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 372/373/323/34 I.P.C. 2. Since there was delay of 579 days in filing the instant appeal, 3. Learned State counsel states that the State has not chosen the same stands condoned. It is at admission stage to file an appeal against the acquittal earned by the respondent nos. 2 to 4. 4. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the lower court records. 5. In short, the case of the prosecution, as one finds in the complaint, is that the complainant-appellant was a labourer and all his family members including his daughter (name not being disclosed) used to work with him to earn livelihood. The respondents Lakhikant Pandit and Tapesh Pandit came to his house in the month of October, 2004 and informed him that they had arranged a job for his eldest daughter and that she would get food and clothes along with Rs.200/- per month. They further assured him that the said amount will be given to her regularly and he can also bring his daughter back whenever he required. Believing both of them, the informant handed over the custody of his daughter to them. It is further alleged that for continuous one year he was getting Rs.200/- per month, but after some time when he and his wife asked both the accused-respondents to call their daughter back, they promised that she would be back in one or two months, but thereafter both the accused-respondents (Lakhikant Pandit and Tapesh Pandit) did not contact him nor they pay money to him. It is then alleged that before filing the complaint also, the informant went to the house of Tapesh Pandit and asked him to bring his daughter back, but at that time respondent-accused Dinbandhu Pandit, who was present there, abused him and started assaulting him saying that he should forget his daughter as they had sold her somewhere. They also threatened the informant that in case the matter was reported to the villagers or any action is taken in this regard, he would be killed. They also threatened the informant that in case the matter was reported to the villagers or any action is taken in this regard, he would be killed. It is, thereafter on 11.4.2006, the informant-appellant went to the Police and lodged the written report, upon which the Police called the respondents and with some compromise, had also arrived at which was reduced into writing and signed by the informant. He, however, in his complaint stated that his signature was taken forcibly. He then alleged that thereafter on 17.6.2006 when he was returning home, respondents-accused Tapesh Pandit and Dinbandhu Pandit again assaulted him and abused him and thereafter he reported the matter to the Police, but no action was taken. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint in the Court on 19th June, 2006 which was registered as PCR Case no.194 of 2006. 6. The appellant-complainant, in support of his case, has examined as many as five witnesses, but we do not feel the necessity of entering into the details with regard to their evidence, as the case of the prosecution falls on the ground in the light of the evidence of Shankar Rai and Ravindra Pandit, who have categorically stated that the daughter of the complainant (custody of whom was handed over to the respondent nos. 2 and 3) was already married. Ravindra Pandit happens to be the nephew of the appellant-complainant. Even otherwise, the only evidence of taking away of the girl is of the complainant himself which does not inspire confidence at all. None of other family members of the complainant has been examined in this case to prove the charges. In our considered view, the ingredients of the aforesaid charges, for which the respondent nos. 2 to 4 had faced trial, are not proved to the hilt. 7. In the flashback of the aforesaid facts, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal earned by all the three private respondents (respondent nos. 2 to 4). The appeal on hand, thus, merits dismissal at this stage itself. Ordered accordingly. 8. Trial court record be sent back to the court concerned.