Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 4 (JHR)

Gopal Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2017-01-03

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application has been directed against the judgment dated 23.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Chatra in Sadar P.S. Case No. 224 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 224 of 2012 by which the opposite party no. 2 was found to be not guilty for the offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376 of I.P.C. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim herself stated in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. about the manner of occurrence. He submits that other witnesses examined in course of trial also reiterated the statement made by the informant. He further submits that these facts have not been properly appreciated by the learned court below before acquitting the petitioner from the charges under Section 363, 366 & 376 of I.P.C. 4. Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, learned A.P.P. on the other hand submitted that several discrepancies were enumerated in the statement of the victim as well as other circumstances which would justify the acquittal of the petitioner. 5. It appears that although, at the initial stage of investigation, the informant has given her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., but in course of trial she did not remember what she had stated. The statement of the victim girl appears to be inconsistent. It further-appears that the story which had been created that 8 persons have come in Maruti 800 vehicle to kidnap the informant is not believable. It further appears that although allegation have been made about some photographs which have been taken by the opposite party no. 2, but no photograph was produced nor any evidence was brought on record in order to substantiate the said facts. The learned court below while refuting the alleged offences against the petitioner vide judgment dated 23.04.2016 has discussed the entire materials available on record and had come to conclusion that the informant has concocted the entire story in order to falsely implicate the opposite party no. 2. The statement of the victim in course of trial also does not inspire confidence as has been stated above as she has not supported the prosecution case. 6. 2. The statement of the victim in course of trial also does not inspire confidence as has been stated above as she has not supported the prosecution case. 6. In such circumstances, therefore, no error or illegality can be detected in the impugned judgment dated 23.04.2016 passed by the learned Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Chatra in Sadar P.S. Case No. 224 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. No. 224 of 2012 and thus having been found no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed.