Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Heard Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, the learned amicus curiae, who appeared on behalf of the appellant in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 348 of 2010, Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, the learned counsel, who appeared for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1360 of 2008 and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, the learned APP, who appeared for the State in both the cases.

2. Both these criminal appeals are preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2008 and the order of sentence dated 01.09.2008 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 460 [2] Cr. A. (SJ) No. 348 of 2010 with of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the appellants were convicted under sections 363, 366A and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo RI for three years each under section 363 IPC, RI for seven years each under section 366A IPC and appellants were further sentenced to undergo RI for seven years under section 376 (2) (g) IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and period already undergone during investigation and trial were ordered to be set-off.

4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Mandu P.S. Case No. 121/2006 dated 17.04.2006 was registered under sections 363, 366A and 376/34 IPC against both the appellants. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under sections 363, 366A and 376/34 of IPC against both the appellants and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Trial was held and at the conclusion of trial, both the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. Hence, these appeals.

22. Regarding delay of 14 days in lodging the FIR, the learned APP has argued that both the girls had actually gone to visit the house of their fufi (aunt) which is away from their home, hence, the father of the girl or the informant did not think that the girls were missing. Informant was under the impression that they had gone to Barkagaon to their aunt's place. It is only after one of the victims that is PW-1 had returned then they came [11] Cr. A. (SJ) No. 348 of 2010 with to know that something was amiss. Thereafter, they started searching for PW-5 and then in due time, they were able to recover PW-5 from one of the appellant's house and then they had duly lodged the FIR. The learned APP has also submitted that only because of the latches of the Investigating Officer the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown away. Particularly, when there are other evidences to support the prosecution case and also full reliance can be placed on the evidence of victim girls. Both PW-5, who had been raped as well as PW-1, who was molested and all these crimes against the two girls were committed under the watchful eye of both the appellants and therefore, they are fully guilty or accountable for the offences under sections 363, 366A and 376 (2) (g) of the Indian Penal Code.

31. In the result, now appellant Suresh Kumar Mahto will undergo his remaining part of his sentence for his conviction under section 366A of IPC and appellant Rajesh Kumar Kuswaha will undergo his remaining part of his sentence for his conviction under section 366A and 376 of IPC. The sentence will run concurrently and period already undergone shall be set- off. Bail bonds of both the appellants stand cancelled.

32. This court is thankful to Mr. Bhola Nath Rajak, Amicus Curaie for his assistance rendered to this court. Member Secretary, JHALSA is directed to pay remuneration to the learned Amicus Curaie as per rules.