Patna High Court
Rajiv Kumar vs State Of Bihar on 26 November, 2013
Author: Anjana Prakash
Bench: Anjana Prakash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
***
[Against the judgment and order of conviction dated
26.02.2002passed the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No.362 of 2000/139 of 2000.] *** Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.114 of 2002 =========================================================== Rajiv Kumar, son of late Ram Sanehi Rai, resident of village- Kahatarwa, P.S.- Sheohar, District-Sheohar .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh No.3, Advocate Mr. Jeetnedra Narayan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Abha Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 26-11-2013 Anjana Prakash, J. The Appellant has been convicted under Sections 376, 366- A Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and seven years respectively and also a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default of which further imprisonment of two months by judgment dated 26.02.2002 passed the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi, in Sessions Trial No.362 of 2000/139 of 2000.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the Informant was kidnapped by the Appellant. When the Informant went to demand explanation from his uncle, his family members threatened him of dire consequences. Subsequently, during investigation, the girl was recovered.
3. On behalf of the defence, some documents and a witness Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.114 of 2002 dt.26-11-2013 2/3 was adduced to the effect that, in fact, there was friendship between the parties and it was not a case of kidnapping.
4. During trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses, out of whom, PW 3 is the victim girl, whereas, PW 4 is the Informant (father of the victim girl). PW 1, Ram Baran Sah, and PW 2, Ram Puran Sah, are the witnesses on the point of taking away the victim girl. PW 5, Meena Devi, has been tendered for cross-examination, whereas, PW 6, Raj Kishore Singh, and PW 7, Chandra Shekahr Pd. Gupta, are the two Investigating Officers. The medical report on assessment of age has been proved as Ext.-D. From the report exhibited, it appears that the Doctor was of the opinion that the girl was approaching 17 years of age.
5. During trial, when the victim was examined, she stated that the Appellant was having sexual relationship with her for the last two months and on the day of kidnapping she had taken money and her cloths indicating that it was a clear case of consent.
6. Submission is that once the girl has been opined to be more than sixteen years of age, no offence under Section 376 Indian Penal Code would be made out. Moreover, the statement of the victim girl that she herself had taken her clothes on the day of kidnapping indicates that it was case of consent and not kidnapping.
7. In view of such, I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Appellant that the prosecution has failed to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.114 of 2002 dt.26-11-2013 3/3 prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
8. In the result, the Appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 376, 366-A Indian Penal Code and is also discharged from the liabilities of bail bond.
9. The appeal stands allowed.
(Anjana Prakash, J) Patna High Court, Patna.
NAFR JA/-