Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2060 (JHR)

Haroon Rashid v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-12-18

RAJESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 04.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 05.05.2006 passed by Madan Mohan Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. VII, Hazaribag in S. T. No. 267 of 1999 whereby and whereunder this appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof further R.I. for six months. 3. Katkamsandi P. S. Case No. 01 of 1999 has been registered on 01.01.1999 under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant namely Binod Kumar Das, P. W. -7 that his wife went for nature call on 31.12.1998 at 7.00 AM along with one another lady namely Rita Devi. After some time Rita Devi has informed the informant that her wife has been forcibly taken away by the appellant on a Maruti Car. He searched, but could not find his wife, thereafter FIR has been lodged. 4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused person and after that cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial has been conducted and he has been convicted for the offence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. On conclusion of the prosecution case, statement of the accused person under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded, in which his defense was denial. 6. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed. 7. To substantiate the charges, altogether nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P. W. 1- Rita Devi, who has informed the husband regarding kidnapping by the appellant, has been declared hostile. P. W.-2, Md. Hasim Mian, P. W. 4- Mathura Sahu and P. W.-5 Sanjar Azad have been declared hostile. P. W. -3, Budhan Bhuiyan is tendered by the prosecution. P. W. -6, Baleshwar Thakur, who is a hearsay witness, has stated that he heard about kidnapping of the victim by the accused person. P. W. 7- Binod Kumar Das is the informant. Hasim Mian, P. W. 4- Mathura Sahu and P. W.-5 Sanjar Azad have been declared hostile. P. W. -3, Budhan Bhuiyan is tendered by the prosecution. P. W. -6, Baleshwar Thakur, who is a hearsay witness, has stated that he heard about kidnapping of the victim by the accused person. P. W. 7- Binod Kumar Das is the informant. He has supported the incident, but he is not an eye witness, rather he is hearsay witness as he has been informed by Rita Devi, P. W.-1 and has been declared hostile. Wife of the informant has been recovered near the Registry Office, Hazaribag by his father-in-law and mother-in-law, who took her to their own house. P. W. -8, Hema Devi is the victim lady. She has supported the incident, but in her cross-examination in para-4, she has testified that the case filed by her husband is false. P. W. -9, Nikhil Nand Das is the Investigating Officer. He has not examined the place of occurrence. There is no enquiry regarding the vehicle i.e. Maruti Car, which was used for kidnapping the victim. Neither the premises where victim has been kept has been examined nor any person In-charge of the premises has been examined. Thus, the prosecution story is full of doubt and there is many lacunae in the investigation. 8. Considering the entire material as discussed hereinabove, this Court finds that prosecution has failed to substantiate the charge under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the judgment of conviction dated 04.05.2006 and order of sentence dated 05.05.2006 passed by Madan Mohan Singh, Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. VII, Hazaribag in S. T. No. 267 of 1999 is, hereby, set aside and the appeal stands allowed. 9. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.