Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar vs Ranjeet Thakur on 4 February, 2013
Author: Mandhata Singh
Bench: Mandhata Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.2 of 2006
*****
Against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6.2.2006 passed by Sri
Chandra Bhan Singh, Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C.4),
Samastipur in Sessions Trial No.166/05
===========================================================
The State Of Bihar
.... .... Appellant
Versus
Ranjeet Thakur
.... .... Respondent
with
Criminal Revision No. 394 of 2006
===========================================================
Uma Kant Choudhary
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Ranjeet Thakur
.... .... Opposite parties
===========================================================
Appearance:
(In G. APP. (SJ) No. 2 of 2006)
For the Appellant: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, A.P.P.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Kr.Jha
(In CR. REV. No. 394 of 2006)
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rabindra Kr. Priyadarshi
For the State : Mr. Satya Narayan Pd., A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 04-02-2013
Prosecution case initiated on statement of Uma Kant
Choudhary P.W.5, in brief, is that on 6.11.2004 at about 9.00 AM 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
Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.2 of 2006 with Cr. Revision No.394 of 2006 dated 2
04.02.2013
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 P.W.1 Ratneshwar Choudhary, P.W.2
Devendra Choudhary, P.W.3 Amresh Kumar Choudhary, P.W.4
Bhawani Kumari victim of the case herself, P.W.5 Uma Kant
Choudhary informant of the case, P.W.6 Sema Devi, P.W.7 Shambhu
Prasad Choudhary, P.W.8 Lalita Devi, P.W.9 Dr. Sudha Verma,
P.W.10 Jagata Nand Thakur I.O. of the case and P.W.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.
Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.2 of 2006 with Cr. Revision No.394 of 2006 dated 3
04.02.2013
7. Some of the facts are not disputed and have
corroboration of the prosecution witnesses also. They are
disappearance of the victim girl P.W.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. 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. P.W.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. P.W.9 is a doctor who has examined the
victim girl and in her opinion the age of victim girl was in between 18
½ 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
Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.2 of 2006 with Cr. Revision No.394 of 2006 dated 4
04.02.2013
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
P.W.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. 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
Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.2 of 2006 with Cr. Revision No.394 of 2006 dated 5
04.02.2013
P.W.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.
(Mandhata Singh, J) A.I./N.A.F.R.