Jharkhand High Court
Reena Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 September, 2018
Author: H.C. Mishra
Bench: H.C. Mishra, B.B. Mangalmurti
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 462 of 2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 462 of 2010
-------
(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2010 and Order of sentence dated 27.03.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Sahibganj, in Sessions Case No.169 of 2007.) Reena Marandi .... Appellant
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
-------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI
-------
For the Appellants : M/s. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Amicus Curiae For the State : M/s. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
-------
By Court.:- Heard learned amicus curiae appointed by the Court for the appellant, as also learned counsel for the State.
2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2010 and Order of sentence dated 27.03.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Sahibganj, in Sessions Case No.169 of 2007, whereby the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 370, 371, 374 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 371 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code, R.I. for one year each for the offences under Sections 374 & 342 of the Indian Penal Code, and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The appellant was apprehended on 5.5.2007 while she was taking away eight girls from a village to Delhi, and she was apprehended at Barharwa Railway Station by the two brothers of the two minor girls, who were amongst the girls being taken by the accused to Delhi. The FIR was lodged at Barharwa Rail Police Station on 5.5.2007 itself, by the informant, Charles Hembram, the brother of the two minor girls, who were apprehended alongwith the accused. The informant has stated that on the previous day, i.e., on 4.5.2007, his sister Sohagini Hembram aged Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 462 of 2010 -2- about 15 years, had gone to Barhait market. When she did not return till 7:00 P.M in the night, she was searched in the village and in course of search, the accused, Reena Marandi was also not found in the village. She was known for taking the girls to Delhi. The informant and his brother, Lalu Hembram proceeded for Barharwa Junction in the night itself, where they reached at about 1:00 P.M., in the night, but they did not find their sister at the railway station, and they stayed there. In the morning of 5.5.2007 at about 5:30 A.M, they found their two sisters, Sohagini Hembram and Saloni Hembram with other six girls, some of them were less than 18 years old, along with the accused, Reena Marandi. Upon interrogation, the girls stated that they were being taken by Reena Marandi to Delhi on the pretext of getting them employed. The informant has stated that his sisters were being taken without the consent of their parents, and out of the victim girls, some of them were less than 18 years of age. Alleging that the girls were being taken by the accused without the consent of their parents for selling them at Delhi, the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant Charles Hembram, in presence of his brother Lalu Hembram, on the basis of which, Barharwa Rail P.S. Case No. 8 of 2007, corresponding to Rail G.R. No. 10 of 2007, was instituted for the offences under Sections 370 and 371 of the Indian Penal Code, against the apprehended accused, Reena Marandi, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.
4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 370, 371, 374 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, she was put to trial.
5. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.-1 Charles Hembram, the informant and brother of the two girls, has fully supported the prosecution case. He has also proved his signature and also the signature of his brother, Lalu Hembram on the F.I.R, which were marked Exhibits-1 & 1/1 respectively. P.W.-2 Lalu Hembram, the other brother of the victim girls was only tendered by the prosecution.
6. P.W.-4 Sohagini Hembram and P.W.-5 Saloni Hembram are the two girls, aged about 15 & 16 years respectively, and the sisters of the informant, who were being taken by the accused to Delhi, while they Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 462 of 2010 -3- were rescued at the railway station. These witnesses have also fully supported the prosecution case, stating that on the instigation of the accused that they would be gainfully employed at Delhi, they were being taken to Delhi, without the consent of their parents.
7. P.W.-3 Koka Tudu, has stated that his daughter and sister-in-law were taken away by the accused to Delhi earlier, but they have not returned till date. In his cross examination, however, he has admitted that he used to had talks with them on phone, and they informed that they were getting the wages for the work being done by them.
8. P.W.-6 Sri Niwas is the I.O. of the case, who has proved the FIR, which was marked Exhibit-2, and he has also proved the confessional statement of the accused which was marked Exhibit-3. He has stated that eight girls were rescued from this accused, who were later sent to their parents.
9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein she has denied the allegation against her. Two witnesses were examined by the defence, who are D.W.-1 Shila Hembram, aged about 25 years, and she was also amongst the girls going to Delhi, when the accused was apprehended. She has stated that she was going to Delhi on her own with the permission of her father. D.W.-2 Marangteri Hembram is the mother of another girl, and she has stated that her daughter was also taken to Delhi, but she had no complain against the accused. On the basis of the evidence on record, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, as aforesaid.
10. In view of the fact that the witnesses, P.W.-1 Charlesh Hembram, P.W.-4 Sohagini Hembram and P.W.-5 Saloni Hembram have fully supported the prosecution case and there is nothing in their cross-examinations to discredit their testimony, learned amicus curiae for the appellant has very fairly confined his arguments only to the sentence of the appellant. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the appellant has been sentenced for the offence under Section 371 of the Indian Penal Code to R.I. for life, probably in view of the fact that P.W.-3 Koka Tudu had stated that two girls taken away by the appellant to Delhi had not returned back as yet. Learned amicus curiae pointed out that this witness had admitted in his cross examination that he used to have talks with the girls and they were getting proper remuneration for work at Delhi. It is Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 462 of 2010 -4- submitted by the learned amicus curiae that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 371 of the Indian Penal Code, is not commensurate to the offence, and in the facts of this case, the appellant could not be awarded the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence.
11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has supported the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that P.W.-1 Charlesh Hembram, P.W.-4 Sohagini Hembram and P.W.-5 Saloni Hembram have fully supported the prosecution case, stating that this accused had instigated the girls and was taking them to Delhi without the consent of their parents. The fact remains that eight girls were rescued from the accused Reena Marandi at the railway station, while they were being taken to Delhi, and some of them were below the age of 18 years. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, for the offences under Sections 370, 371, 374 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. Though P.W.-3 Koka Tudu has stated that his daughter and sister-in-law, who were taken to Delhi earlier, have not returned back as yet, but it is apparent that he had not lodged any case against the accused for the same. He has also admitted in his cross examination that he used to have talks with both the girls on phone, and they were getting proper remuneration.
14. In that view of the matter, as also taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is a lady, we are of the considered view that the punishment of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 371 of the Indian Penal Code is not commensurate to the offence committed by her, and it is in the excessive side. We accordingly, set aside the sentence imposed upon the appellant, Reena Marandi for the offence under Section 371 of the Indian Penal Code, and modify the same, sentencing her to R.I for 10 years. The fine imposed by the Trial Court below under this Section shall remain intact. As regards the sentences imposed upon the appellant for the other offences for which she has been convicted by the Trial Court below, we do not find any illegality in the same.
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 462 of 2010 -5-
15. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2010 and Order of sentence dated 27.03.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Sahibganj, in Sessions Case No.169 of 2007, convicting and sentencing the appellant, Reena Marandi, for the offences under Sections 370, 371, 374 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, affirmed, with the modification in the sentence for the offence under Section 371 of the Indian Penal Code, to the extent that the imprisonment for life is substituted by R.I. for 10 years. The appellant is in custody undergoing the sentence. She shall be released from judicial custody and set at liberty, upon completing the sentences as modified as above.
16. Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been given able assistance by the learned amicus curiae, Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha. We accordingly, direct the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, to make the payment of the prescribed remuneration to the learned amicus curiae. Let a copy of this Judgement be sent to the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, for the needful.
17. This appeal is accordingly, dismissed with the modification in the sentence as aforesaid. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgement.
(H.C. Mishra, J.) (B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated the 08th of September, 2018.
D.S-.B.S/ N.A.F.R.