Manoj Singh @ Manoj Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 2645 Jhar

                                         1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
                  Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1567 of 2004
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 20.08.2004 and the order of
sentence dated 25.08.2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge
Hazaribagh, in Sessions Trial No. 498 of 1993)

1. Manoj Singh @ Manoj Singh
2. Anil Kumar Singh                                       ..... Appellants
                               Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                    ..... Respondent
                               ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Appellants : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, APP

--------

10/ 07.08.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2004 & 25.08.2004, respectively passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Sessions Trial No. 498 of 1993; whereby the appellant No.1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years on each count under Section 366 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No.2 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years for each count under Section 366, 366A/109 of the IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 04.05.1993, the daughter of the informant, namely, Kavita Kumari, had gone to school for appearing in the matriculation examination which was being conducted in both sitting. The daughter of the informant appeared in the 1st sitting of the examination and on the lunch break at 12.45 P.M, the informant had taken lunch for her to the school but he did not find his daughter and later it transpired that she had not appeared in the 2nd sitting of the examination. Thereafter, the informant searched his daughter but she was not found anywhere. On the very next day, one of his neighbors told him that he saw his daughter with the appellant No.1-Manoj Singh at Kuju Bus stand. It is alleged that the victim-Kavita Kumari was abducted by the appellant No.1- Manoj Singh.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants made following submissions:

(i) No case is made out against these appellants in view of the exhibits 1 and 1/1 which are the love letters written by the victim.

(ii) The prosecution has failed to examine the victim.

(iii) The fact of the case shows that the victim went with the appellant No.1 and she was recovered from Gaya station along with the appellant. Though initially the charge for Section 376 was also framed, however, the appellants were not convicted for the said section but convicted under Section 366 and 366 A of the IPC.

Learned counsel, further draws attention of this Court towards the statement under Section 164 of the victim which clearly indicates that the victim girl was infatuated with the appellant No.1-Manoj Singh, whom she met in a marriage and subsequently developed a love affair and as a matter of fact, though the victim has not been examined but exhibits 1 and 1/1 stipulates that the victim developed a love affair and there was no any confinement etc. Relying upon the aforesaid contentions, learned counsel prays for acquittal of the appellant.

5. Learned APP supports the impugned judgment and submits that no error has been committed by the learned trial court. She further contended that admittedly the girl was a minor, as such the story of love affair will not save the appellants from the commission of offence under Sections 366 and 366 A of the IPC.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on the LCR especially exhibit 1 and 1/1, it is evident that though the girl was minor but she had developed a love affair with the appellant-Manoj Singh. Though, in the statement given under Section 164 Cr. P.C she has supported the case of the prosecution; however, for the reason best known to the prosecution, she has not been examined before the court of law so as to give an occasion to the court to ask few questions from her by way of court's question.

7. Looking to the letters which is exhibited and the statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C., it can be easily inferred that the statement u/S 164 has been made under pressure. The prosecution witnesses have failed to prove that the exhibited document is concocted; rather, they have

admitted the same. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the girl had developed a love affair with the appellant no.1-Manoj Singh.

8. In the case of Iqbal versus State of Kerala reported in (2007) 12 SCC 724 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para 9 and 10 are as under:

"9. The residual question is of applicability of Section 366 A IPC. In order to attract Section 366A IPC, essential ingredients are (1) that the accused induced a girl; (2) that the person induced was a girl under the age of eighteen years; (3) that the accused has induced her with intent that she may be or knowing that it is likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse; (4) such intercourse must be with a person other than the accused; (5) that the inducement caused the girl to go from any place or to do any act.

10. In the instant case, the admitted case of the prosecution is that girl had left in the company of the accused of her own will and that she was not forced to sexual intercourse with any person other than the accused. The admitted case is that she had sexual intercourse with the accused for which, considering her age, conviction under Section 376 IPC has been maintained. Since the essential ingredient that the intercourse must be with a person other than the accused has not been established, Section 366 A has no application."

In the instant case also, there is no evidence to the effect that the victim girl was induced, on the contrary; she had developed a love affair and had left in the company of the accused of her own will and that she was not forced to any sexual intercourse, inasmuch as, in the instant case, the appellants have been acquitted from the charge of Section 376.

9. It is further evident from the deposition of brother of the victim-P.W.-1, who in para 16 has deposed that he was having suspicion that the alleged victim girl was in love affair with the appellant No.1-Manoj Singh.

10. Though, from the deposition of the Investigating Officer it transpires that the victim girl was admittedly less than 18 years but it is evident that the recovery of the alleged victim was not known to him. As such, it can be inferred that these appellants have falsely been implicated in this case, inasmuch as, the evidence of the brother of victim, who was P.W.1, clearly transpires that he was having suspicion about the relation of her sister with the appellant No.1-Manoj Singh.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case no offence is made out under Section 366 and 366A of the IPC and consequently, the appellant No.1 is acquitted from these charges.

12. So far as appellant No.2 is concerned; there is no role of abetment since the victim was in a love affair with the appellant No.1- Manoj Singh, as such, he is also acquitted under Section 366 and Section 366A/109 of the IPC.

13. Having regards to the aforesaid observations and discussions, the instant criminal appeal stands allowed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.08.2004 & 25.08.2004, respectively passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Sessions Trial No. 498 of 1993 is, hereby, quashed and set aside.

14. The appellants shall be discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, subject to fulfillment of aforesaid condition.

15. Let a copy of this order and the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

(Deepak Roshan, J.) Pramanik/ AFR