Jharkhand High Court
Pappu Ram Son Of Sri Jagdish Ram vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 October, 2024
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1388 of 2006
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
19.09.2006, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Sessions
Trial Case No.206 of 2003]
Pappu Ram Son of Sri Jagdish Ram, Resident of Mohalla Sardar
Chowk, Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh
... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
......
For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Tarun Kumar, Addl. P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Nawin Kumar, Adv.
......
C.A.V. on 22.10.2024 Pronounced on 29.10.2024
1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr.
Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr.
Tarun Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State and
Mr. Nawin Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
informant.
2. This instant appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 19.09.2006 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in S.T. Case No.206 of
2003 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held
guilty for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 of the
Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 1
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. of three
years and fine of Rs.1000/- and R.I. of four years along with
fine of Rs.2000/- for the above offences respectively with
default stipulation.
3. The factual matrix as depicted in the F.I.R. lodged by
one Birendra Prasad Verma is that in the intervening night of
15/16.07.2002 at about 9 hours, all the family members after
taking dinner were under profound sleep. It is alleged that in
one room informant's four daughters and granddaughters
were sleeping and in another room informant along with his
grandson and wife were sleeping. It is further alleged that at
about 02:00 a.m., one of the daughters Sindhu Kumari @ Tinu
aged about 14 years got up to discharge nature's call and
went towards bathroom but did not return till sometime then
her elder sister went to see her but did not found Sindhu
Kumari in the toilet then she informed to all family members.
The informant has raised suspicion against the present
appellant for enticing/taking away the minor daughter of the
informant in pretext of performing marriage with her as they
were under talking terms with each other. The informant also
went to the house of Pappu Ram who was not present in his
house since previous night. It is alleged that the victim girl
was studying in Class IX. On the basis of above information
F.I.R. was instituted as Sadar Hazaribagh P.S. Case No.279 of
2002 for the offences under Sections 363 and 366(A) of the
I.P.C., after institution of First Information Report, the victim
girl returned to her home and her statement was recorded.
She was also physically examined by doctor and after
investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the sole
accused (present appellant).
4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where
Sessions Trial No.206 of 2003 was registered, charges were
framed against the sole accused under Section 363 and 366 of
the I.P.C. which was read over and explained to him for
which he denied and claimed to be tried.
5. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty
for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above
which has been assailed in this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
the appellant is thoroughly innocent and has been falsely
implicated in this case without any fault only on the basis of
suspicion. Admittedly, there was love affair between victim
girl and the appellant who was major aged about 18 years on
the date of occurrence as per medical examination report of
the victim. The victim girl proceeded from her house and
returned to her home on her own accord on the same day and
she was never in possession of the appellant at any point of
time. Therefore, story of kidnapping of the victim becomes
false. It is further submitted that the father of victim girl was
not in favour of the love affair between appellant and his
daughter, therefore, he has lodged this false case projecting
his daughter as a victim and she, under influence of her
father, has narrated a false story against the petitioner in her
statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted
that after lodging this case and when the victim girl had
attained clear cut age of majority, the appellant and the
alleged victim girl have solemnized their marriage and out of
their wedlock two children have been begotten. One son is at
present aged about 13 years and daughter is aged about 9
years. Both are discharging their conjugal life since long in a
peaceful manner and there is no grievance of any kind of the
informant who also participated in the said marriage.
Therefore, appellant deserves to be acquitted from the
charges leveled against him.
7. On the other hand, the informant Birendra Prasad
Verma, father of the victim girl, has also filed a counter
affidavit in support of assertion of the appellant regarding
marriage with the victim girl after attaining the age of
majority with the appellant and they are discharging their
conjugal rights and duties having children out of their
wedlock. He also states that the criminal case was lodged
under confusion and misconception on the basis of suspicion
due to love affair between appellant and his daughter.
8. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State has
defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence of the appellant by submitting that on the basis of
oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the
victim girl was found below 18 years on the date of
occurrence. She was school going girl and her date of birth in
the school certificate (Ex.2) is 20.01.1988 as such there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order
calling for any interference even in the chain of circumstances
as pleaded by the informant and appellant and thus, this
appeal is fit to be dismissed.
9. It appears that in order to substantiate the charges
levelled against the present appellant altogether seven
witnesses were examined out of them P.W.-2 is the victim girl
who was examined on 18.06.2005 disclosing her age as 17
years. According to her evidence at about 02:00 a.m. in the
night, she woke up for discharging nature's call and came to
her courtyard meanwhile Pappu Ram (appellant) came there
and put something on her nose in a cloth due to which she
became faint and in the next day morning, she found herself
in a hut near the lake. She has further alleged that the
appellant forcibly got her photograph with him with the
assistance by a photographer and was threatened to
solemnize marriage with her. Later on, she came to know that
her father had lodged a case at police station, hence, Pappu
Ram left her near the S.S.P. residence and went away then she
saw her father was searching her and returned to home with
her father. She has clearly stated that nothing else was done
by the accused with her.
In her cross-examination, she was shown a photograph
by the accused in which there was a photo of her father,
mother, younger sister along with the accused. Some letters
written by the victim girl were also shown to her but she
denied the same showing her shame attitude. She has also
stated in her statement before the Investigating Officer about
the love affair with the accused Pappu Ram. She has not
stated about any threatening given to her by the accused. The
manner of occurrence as disclosed by her also falsifies the
story of kidnapping in as much as the victim went to her
courtyard which is enclosed by boundary wall and gate is
also fixed which was closed, but she did not raise any alarm
although her other sisters also woke up. How she was
managed to brought outside the courtyard, has not been
stated by her. She has denied the suggestion of defence that
she belongs to upper caste and the accused belong to lower
caste, hence, her father was not desiring to solemnize her
marriage with the accused and implicated in this false case.
P.W.-1 Birendra Prasad Verma is the father of the
victim girl. He has proved the contents of his fardbayan and
stated that he has lodged the case against Pappu Ram on the
basis of suspicion because he frequently used to talk her
daughter and was compelling to solemnize marriage with
him. His daughter was recovered on the same day and she
disclosed that Pappu Ram has kidnapped her for the purpose
of solemnizing marriage with her but due to institution of
F.I.R. he left her near the residence of Superintendent of
Police.
P.W.-3 Meera Devi is the sister of the victim girl and
deposed in the same line as her father.
P.W.-6 Usha Devi is the mother of the victim who has
consistently proved that the victim was missing from the date
of incident and they were suspecting against Pappu Ram who
was in talking terms with the victim girl and compelling her
to marry with him. The victim girl was recovered on the same
day.
In their cross-examination, above witnesses have clearly
admitted that they have not seen the victim and the accused
together on the date of occurrence.
P.W.-4 Dr. Sandhya Topno has medically examined the
victim girl and found no mark of sexual assault and age of
the victim after radiological examination was assessed to be
18 years.
P.W.-5 A.S.I. Santosh Kumar is the Investigating
Officer of this case. According to his evidence on 16.07.2002 at
about 16 hours, a message was received at the police station
that from Zarina Villa, Dipugarha, a boy has been eloped
with a girl and after making Station Diary (SD) entry, he went
for verification of the above information. He reached at the
place of occurrence at about 16:30 hours where he recorded
fardbayan of Birendra Prasad Verma. Accordingly, formal
F.I.R. was registered as Sadar P.S. Case No.279 of 2002 under
Section 363 and 366A of the I.P.C. He visited the place of
occurrence which is rental house of the informant named as
Zarina Villa comprising of seven rooms wherein the
informant resides with his family. There is a courtyard and in
the corner, there was latrine room and the courtyard is
surrounded with boundary wall about five to six fit high. A
gate is also fixed in the boundary wall which was used to be
locked in the night. There was some sand inside the
boundary wall near gate. It was told that Sindhu Kumari
crossed the wall by scaling through the sand mount. He was
also informed on 17.07.2002 at about 08:00 a.m. that
kidnapped victim girl has returned to her home. He sent the
victim for medical examination and also got her statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After conclusion of
investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the accused
for the offences under Sections 363 and 366A of the I.P.C.
In his cross-examination, he admits that the statement
of the victim under Section 164 was recorded after four
months of the occurrence. No birth certificate was produced
by the informant showing the age of the victim girl and her
age was opined to be 18 years by the doctor.
P.W.-7 Rajiv Ranjan is a Judicial Magistrate who has
recorded the statement of victim girl under Section 164
Cr.P.C. And proved the same as Ex.8.
10. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the defence
has adduced documentary evidence Ex.A and A/1:
photographs of the accused with victim girl and with her
family members. The letters were also adduced but could not
be authentically proved. However, defence plea is innocence
and false implication by the father of the victim girl.
11. From discussion of aforesaid evidence of the victim girl
as well as other witnesses of facts including her parents and
Cr.A(SJ) No.1388 of 2006 Page | 10
sisters, it appears that the sole witness who can exactly prove
the manner of occurrence is the victim girl herself but she has
not stated in a single word as to how she was brought outside
of her house when the gate was locked. She also admits the
presence of her sister just after two minutes when she
proceeded for discharging natural call from her room but her
sister (P.W.-3) Meera Devi has not corroborated the aforesaid
testimony of the victim girl. It is also obvious that the victim
girl was not seen along with the accused at any point of time
on the day of occurrence or till the recovery of the victim girl.
It is also apparent that accused belong to Scheduled Caste
whereas the informant is of upper caste that was also an
obstacle for marriage. It is also admitted by all the witnesses
that the accused has been implicated in this case only on the
basis of suspicion due to his talking terms with the victim
girl. The trend of evidence of witnesses also leads to the
inference that in order to keep the accused (who belongs to a
member of Scheduled Caste) aloof from the life of the victim,
he has been implicated in this case. Although, later on when
the victim girl attained the age of majority, she was married
with the accused. It is settled law that where two views are
possible, one in favour of accused must be accepted. In the
instant case possibility of false implication of accused cannot
be overruled.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, I find
merits in this appeal which is hereby allowed and impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence of appellant is
set aside. Appellant is on bail. He is discharged from liability
of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.
13. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court
record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for
information and needful.
14. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 29/10/2024
Sachin / NAFR
