Siya Ram Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1390 Jhar

      IN    THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr.M.P. No. 887 of 2017

      Siya Ram Singh                                     .....    ... Petitioner
                                     Versus
      1. The State of Jharkhand
      2. Nitin Kumar                                     ........ Opposite Parties
                                     --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. C. MISHRA : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

--------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate.

      For the State             : A.P.P.
                                     --------

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

--------

12/ 18.03.2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

for the State.

2. Originally, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1043 of 2015 was filed

by the present petitioner against the impugned Judgment of Acquittal

dated 26.9.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,

F.T.C., Bokaro, in S.T. No. 80 of 2009, whereby, the sole accused-O.P.

No. 2, who was facing the trial for the offence under Section 366 of the

Indian Penal Code, has been acquitted by the Trial Court.

3. By order dated 11.4.2017, passed by a co-ordinate Bench, the

original criminal appeal was allowed to be converted into the Criminal

Miscellaneous Petition, seeking leave for filing a criminal appeal, and

accordingly, the original criminal appeal was converted into the

present Cr.M.P.

4. The impugned Judgment shows that the present petitioner,

who is father of the alleged victim-girl, was the informant in the case, who

had alleged that his minor daughter was kidnapped on 9.5.2008 by the

accused O.P. No. 2. The impugned Judgment further shows that the victim

girl was not examined by the prosecution, rather she had been examined by

the defence, as D.W.-1, wherein she has specifically stated in her evidence

that she had herself gone to the O.P. No. 2 and had performed marriage

with him, out of her free will, and her marriage was also registered before

the Marriage Registrar at Koderma. She has also stated that she was 19

years old at that time. She has also stated that the case was falsely lodged

by her father, due to inter-caste marriage by them, and she was living

happily with her husband. She has specifically stated that she had neither

been persuaded nor taken away by the accused-O.P. No. 2.

5. Taking the evidence of the victim, into consideration, the Trial

Court below has acquitted the accused-O.P. No. 2.

6. We do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of

Acquittal, passed by the Trial Court below, so as to make out any case for

granting special leave to file the acquittal appeal.

7. There is no merit in this criminal miscellaneous petition and

the same, is accordingly, dismissed.

(H. C. Mishra, J.)

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Amitesh/-