Jharkhand High Court
Umesh Raut vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 October, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2006
1. Umesh Raut
2. Suresh Raut
Both sons of Phadai Raut, resident of Agairkur P.S.
Chirkunda P.O. Kusunda, District- Dhanbad.
..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. P.D Agrawal, Spl.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated: 18th October, 2024 By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated 15.04.2006 and 19.04.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 292 of 1992, arising out of Chirkunda P.S. Case No. 234 of 1989, (G.R. Case No. 3456 of 1989) registered under Sections 366 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulation.
Page 1 of 5
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 16/17.11.1989, informant's daughter namely, Rekha Kumari aged about 16 years, was sleeping inside the house. Since the mid-night at about 2:00 AM, Victim girl was missing from house. It is further alleged that Suresh Raut (appellant) and Sunil Choudhary (absconder) used to talk with the victim girl. Therefore, informant has suspected that both of them have kidnapped his daughter for illicit intercourse.
4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered against the above named accused persons for the offences under Sections 366 and 366A of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against two accused persons Umesh Raut and Suresh Raut for the offences under Sections 366 and 366A of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No. 292 of 1992 was registered and in due course, transfered to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Dhanbad for trial and disposal. The charges were framed against accused persons for the offences under Sections 366 and 366A of the I.P.C., which they denied and claimed to be tried.
Page 2 of 5
6. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against them, altogether five witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
P.W.-1 : Kapil Deo Prasad (Informant).
P.W.-2 : Rekha Kumari (Victim).
P.W.-3 : Beli Bourine (Witness to recovery of victim).
P.W.-4 : Dharnidhar Mondal (Formal witness).
P.W.-5 : Dr. Reeta Gupta (Medical witness who examined
the victim)
7. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary
evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 : Signature of Kapildeo Prasad on
fardbeyan.
Exhibit-2 : Signature of Rekha Kumari on her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
Exhibit-3 : Medical report of the Rekha Kumari.
8. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.
9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, held the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.
Page 3 of 5
10. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellants that they have been falsely implicated by the informant. The victim was a married lady and the real fact is that she was under
love affair with the appellant no. 1. Therefore, she has concocted a false story to save her marital life. It is further submitted that the victim returned to her own house herself after 12 hours, so the question of recovery of victim girl with appellant no. 1 does not arise.
11. It is further submitted that since appellants have faced the agony of the trial about 35 years and it is their first offence, hence if their conviction is upheld, then a lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence.
12. Per contra, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, which calling for any interference. This appeal has no merit and is fit to be dismissed.
13. I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. The finding of the trial court appears to be correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on merits by way of this appeal. Page 4 of 5
14. So far sentence awarded to the appellants are concerned, admittedly out of five years rigorous imprisonment, they have undergone imprisonment for about two years five months during trial and after conviction. This is a case of year 1989 and since, then appellants have suffered the agony of trial for the period of 35 years. Appellants have no criminal background, hence, the imprisonment already undergone by the appellants appears to be sufficient punishment.
15. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent that appellants are sentenced for the imprisonment already undergone by them instead of imprisonment awarded by concerned Trial Court.
16. Appellants are on bail. Hence, they are discharged from the liabilities of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.
17. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Simran/-
Page 5 of 5