Patna High Court
Md. Allauddin vs State Of Bihar on 11 April, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.124 of 1996
===========================================================
Razi Ahmad, son of late Md. Alijan, resident of Village-Dhaka Ram Chandra, P.O.
& P.S.-Dhaka, Dist.-East Champaran.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar .... .... Respondent
===========================================================
With
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 165 of 1996
===========================================================
Md. Allauddin, son of Idris Mian, resident of Village-Dhaka Ramchandra, P.O. &
P.S.-Dhaka, Dist.-East Champaran.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar .... .... Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance :
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 124 of 1996)
For the Appellant : Smt. Meena Singh, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
(In CR. APP (SJ) No. 165 of 1996)
For the Appellant : Smt. Meena Singh, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent : Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 11-04-2014
The two appeals arise out of judgment dated 3.6.1996
passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran at
Motihari in Sessions Trial No.138 of 1985, by which the learned
Judge held appellant Razi Ahmad guilty of committing offence under
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant Md. Allauddin
guilty of committing offences under Sections 366 and 376 of the
Indian Penal Code. The two appellants were heard under Section 235
Cr.P.C. on 4.6.1996 and while appellant Razi Ahmad was directed to
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.124 of 1996 dt.11-04-2014
2/11
serve rigorous imprisonment for two years for being convicted under
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, appellant Md. Allauddin was
handed down a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years
under Section 366 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for seven years
under Section 376 I.P.C.
2. As appears from the evidence of the prosecution case,
the victim of the offence, examined as P.W.3, was the daughter of
P.W.1, namely, Maimunisha Khatoon, whose husband, Md. Hadis
Khan, was residing most of the times in the year in West Bengal.
P.W. 1 resided at her house at village Babhna Tola with P.W.3, her
daughter, who appears admitted to some Madarsa. Accused Md.
Allauddin was a Hafiz- one who had mastered the study of Quran
and had got it by heart- and he had been engaged to impart tuition to
P.W.3. The appellant Md. Allauddin used to come, as appears from
the evidence, to the house of P.W.1 and P.W.3 to impart tuition to
the victim every evening. He had come as usual on 9.2.1984 also for
teaching his pupil, P.W.3.
3. The allegation is that the mother of P.W.3, i.e., P.W.1
had gone into a neighbour‟s house leaving her daughter and
appellant Md. Allauddin together in her house, the two, i.e., the
victim and Md. Alluddin disappeared from there. The mother of the
victim, P.W.1, came back to find the two having disappeared and on
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.124 of 1996 dt.11-04-2014
3/11
search she could not find out her daughter. She informed her brother,
Md. Zulfikar Ali, P.W.2, who also made a search for the girl, P.W.3,
and not finding her and coming to know that it was appellant Md.
Allauddin, who had taken or enticed away P.W.3, lodged the written
report Ext.-5 on the basis of which Ext.-2, the First Information
Report of the case, was drawn.
4. The Investigating Officer was not examined and the
case-diary has been put into evidence by examining a formal witness,
namely, P.W.5, Bal Mukund Pandey. It appears from the evidence of
P.W.3, which fact does not appear controverted, that the victim was
taken to different places and lastly to village Amwa, somewhere in
Nepal and P.W.2, Zulfikar Ali along with the police of Nepal and of
the State of Bihar went to that village and recovered the lady on
21.7.1984, as appears from the seizure-cum-recovery memo (Ext.-3) tendered in evidence by the same prosecution witness P.W.5. P.W.3 was brought back to East Champaran at Motihari, where she was medically examined by Dr. (Mrs.) C.K.Verma, P.W.4, on 23.7.1984 at 11.30 A.M. P.W.3, the victim, was again produced before the Judicial Magistrate for recording her statement. Ext.-A, the statement of the victim, was recorded on the same day, i.e., on 23.7.1984. After closure of the investigation, the two appellants were sent-up for their trial and that ended up in the impugned judgment. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.124 of 1996 dt.11-04-2014 4/11
5. It appears that six witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case and after considering the same, the two appellants were convicted and sentenced as pointed out at the very outset.
6. Smt. Meena Singh, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants submitted that in spite of Md. Allauddin, the appellant, being named in the First Information Report, the other appellant, Razi Ahmad, was not named and it appears that his name appeared for the first time in the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Submission was that the Doctor had found her aged about 14 years, but the prosecution appears guilty of suppressing some material evidence on the age of the victim. Undisputedly, she was enrolled in a Madarsa for prosecuting her studies and that authentic evidence was not produced. Submission was that if three years were to be added up to the estimated age of 14 years, the lady was crossing the threshold of 16 years as regards the offence of rape and may be said to be a person who had also approached the age of discretion of 18 years and in that view the offences under Section 366 and 376 may be found not established.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the age of 14 years of the victim was a material evidence as regards the conviction of the appellants and there was no Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.124 of 1996 dt.11-04-2014 5/11 need of interference by this Court with the impugned judgment.
8. It does not appear disputed that P.W.3 had either gone in the company of Md. Allauddin or had been taken away by him, may be that appellant Md. Allauddin had enticed her away. The victim in her evidence had stated that she went out of her house to the bus stand by a rickshaw to catch a bus for going to Pachpakri, where she stayed in the house of a person, where she was sexually assault. From there the two came to Chainpur Bangla and from there by train they reached Muzaffarpur and from Muzaffarpur they traveled to Purshotimpur and stayed in the house of one Iftekhar Mian. This travel consumed four days and as per the lady‟s evidence, appellant Md. Allauddin was continuously with her and sexually assaulted her. The travel of the lady was extended up to Delhi, where they had rented out a house and were living together and what did the lady state was that wherever and whenever the appellant, Md. Allauddin, was asked by anyone about the relationship between him and the victim, he would claim that the lady was her cousin, being the daughter of his maternal uncle. The lady remained in the company of appellant Md. Allauddin right from 9.2.1984 up to 21.7.1984, i.e., for more than five months and it hardly requires to be pointed out that they had physical relationship between them.
9. While considering the evidence of P.W.3 I could not Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.124 of 1996 dt.11-04-2014 6/11 find out that indeed the lady was really opposing the acts of being sexually exploited, rather appears moving with the appellant Md. Allauddin from one place to the other probably to evade being caught and recovered and further being restored to her parental custody. This element itself indicates that she was a consenting party and further that it might not be a case of kidnapping or abduction rather it might be a case of simple elopement of a girl with a man of her liking.
10. Then the question is as to whether the age of 14 years could be the deciding factor as regards the commission of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. and thereafter the offence under Section 366 I.P.C. also. The prevailing judicial view, right from Jaya Mala v. Home Secretary, Government of J and K, [(1982) 2 SCC 538], that while considering the age of a person, whose age has been medically determined, the Court should add up three years to the medically determined age. Adding up three years to 14 years, as was the testified age of P.W.3 by P.W.4, Dr. Smt. C.K.Verma, the age of the victim comes to 17 years and the fact which I have just noticed regarding the sojourn of the victim with appellant Md. Alluaddin does not leave any room to take a different view that she was not only a consenting party but was moving with the appellant with her heart and mind both, having decided to remain in company of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.124 of 1996 dt.11-04-2014 7/11 appellant. In that view of the matter, the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. appears not attracted to the facts of the case.
11. So far as the conviction of the appellant, Md. Alluaddin, under Section 366 I.P.C. is concerned, the Court refers to the case of Varadarajan v. State of Madras, (A.I.R. 1965 SC 942), in which the Supreme Court was making a distinction between the acts of „taking away‟ or „enticing away‟ a girl of below 18 years and an act of mere elopement of a girl. Paragraph 9 of the judgment is relevant for the purpose and I am tempted to quote that particular paragraph:
"9. It must, however, be borne in mind that there is a distinction between "taking" and allowing a minor to accompany a person. The two expressions are not synonymous though we would like to guard ourselves from laying down that in no conceivable circumstances can the two be regarded as meaning the same thing for the purposes of Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. We would limit ourselves to a case like the present where the minor alleged to have been taken by the accused person left her father's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full import of what she was doing voluntarily joins the accused person. In such a case we do not think that the accused can be said to have taken her away from the keeping of her lawful guardian. Something more has to be shown in a case Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.124 of 1996 dt.11-04-2014 8/11 of this kind and that is some kind of inducement held out by the accused person or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house of the guardian."
12. As may appear from the observations of the Supreme Court that even if a minor was eloping with a person irrespective of the age of the minor it could not be an offence of either of kidnapping or of abduction because the two important ingredients constituting the offence either of kidnapping or abduction are not available in such cases. „Taking away‟ presupposes removing a minor or a lady or any person by some use of force, whereas „enticing away‟ indicates as if the person kidnapped or abducted, had been tricked into going with a man who had either kidnapped or abducted the person. In such a situation, the prosecution is required to bring evidence on record which could establish the elements either of taking away or of enticing away. If the facts of the case indicated that P.W.3, the victim of the offence, was neither taken away nor was enticed away and in fact had, out of her own free will, moved out of the keeping of her lawful guardianship or from her parents‟ house, then no offence of kidnapping or abduction could be made out, even if the girl was below 18 years of age. But what I want to emphasize is that age is not material in such cases. What is the main Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.124 of 1996 dt.11-04-2014 9/11 material ingredient of an offence of kidnapping or abduction is either of the two elements i.e. taking away or enticing away so as to removing the minor out of the keeping of her lawful guardianship. I have already noted, after having noticed the evidence of the victim, that it was not a case either of taking away or of enticing away; it rather appeared a case of willingly stepping out of the parental care and guardianship by P.W.3 so as to moving with appellant Md. Allauddin from one place to the other to many places and residing with him by her mind, soul and body. This could not, as such, be a case under Section 366 I.P.C. Accordingly, I find that the conviction of appellant Md. Allauddin for an offence under Section 366 I.P.C. also appears not justified under the facts of the case.
13. It was rightly pointed out that appellant Razi Ahmad, the appellant of the other appeal, was not named in the First Information Report. But that could not be the solitary ground for considering his case for acquittal. In a case of kidnapping or abduction, an accused may not be named in the First Information Report and it may be that on taking up the investigation, materials are collected so as to establishing or reasonably indicating the participation of one or many persons in commission of the offence. Viewing the facts from that angle it may be correct to rule out the argument that appellant Razi Ahmad was not named in the First Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.124 of 1996 dt.11-04-2014 10/11 Information Report. However, he was definitely named by the victim in her 164 statement and what was stated by her was that when she had reached the bus stand by a rickshaw with appellant Md. Allauddin, he was found there and after appellant Md. Allauddin and the victim had boarded the bus, appellant Razi Ahmad came back from the bus stand. Thus, what appears is that Razi Ahmad did not even board the bus. On the very strength of the evidence of P.W.3, the victim, he had not gone either to the house of her parents to take her out or bring her out of her lawful guardianship or had given any blandishment-to borrow the word from Varadarajan (supra)-to the victim so as to bring her out of the precincts of her parents‟ house and, thus, to take her away from the keeping of her lawful guardianship. In that view of the state of evidence, it is very difficult to uphold and justify the conviction of appellant Razi Ahmad under Section 363 I.P.C. He does not appear to have contributed towards the commission of any offence.
14. Thus, what appears from the above discussion of the evidence and the inferences arising therefrom, in the opinion of this Court, it was not a case in which the two appellants would have been convicted and sentenced. On the facts of the case, it was a case where the appellants should have been acquitted and accordingly, the two appeals are allowed by setting aside the judgment of conviction Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.124 of 1996 dt.11-04-2014 11/11 and order of sentence passed upon them. The appellants are acquitted of the charges, they had been found guilty of. The appellants are on bail. They shall stand discharged from the liabilities of their respective bonds.
15. Smt. Meena Singh has made it possible for this Court to render this judgment after assisting it at a very short notice. It is hereby directed that Smt. Singh be paid one fee each for argument each of the two appeals while assisting the Court and for that purpose let the copies of the first and last pages be made available to Smt. Singh.
(Dharnidhar Jha, J) A.F.R. Pawan/-
__ |__| U |__| T