Jharkhand High Court
Surendra Lohra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1475 of 2007
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 07.08.2007 and order of
sentence dated 13.08.2007 passed by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial Case No. 545 of 2004/
Session Trial No. 86 of 2005.]
Surendra Lohra, Son of Sukhdeo Lohra, resident of Vilage
Buchaoppa, P.S. Chanho, District- Ranchi.
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
.....
For the Appellants : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated: 17th January, 2025
By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Above named appellant has preferred this criminal appeal
challenging judgment of conviction dated 07.08.2007 and
order of sentence dated 13.08.2007 passed by learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in Sessions
Trial Case No. 545 of 2004/ Session Trial No. 86 of 2005
(arising out of Chanho P.S. Case No. 48 of 2004), whereby
and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the
offence punishable under Sections 366-A/34 and 376 of the
I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years along
with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under
Section 376 of the I.P.C. R.I. for five years under Section
366A/34 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.500/- with
default stipulation. Both the sentences are directed to be run
concurrently.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow
compass is that informant's daughter went to school on
16.06.2004 at 07:00 AM like every day, but she did not
return home till night. Thereafter, he started searching
her. In the meantime, he got information that one
Surendra Lohra (appellant) took away his daughter with
intention to marry with her. Upon search, he also found
that Manoj Lohra, Sukkhu Lohra and Jagarnnath Lohara
were also involved in kidnapping of his daughter and also
helped him to conceal her. Despite keeping search, no clue
was found, hence, FIR was lodged.
4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered
against the accused person for the offence under Section
366A/34 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
of the case has submitted charge sheet against the accused
person for the offence under Section 366A/34 of the I.P.C.
After taking cognizance of the offence, the case was
committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal.
Thereafter, charges were framed for the offences under
Sections 366A/34 and 376 of the I.P.C., which were
denied by accused persons claiming to be tried.
6. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against accused
person, altogether eight witnesses were examined by the
prosecution. Apart from oral evidence, following
documentary evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 : Medical Report.
Exhibit-2 : Written Report.
Exhibit-2/1 : Endorsement (handwriting and
signature on the statement of 164
Cr.P.C. of victim).
Exhibit-3 : Formal FIR.
Exhibit-3/1 : Signature on Formal FIR.
Exhibit-1/1 : Requisition for medical test.
Exhibit-4 : Signature of victim girl on the
statement u/s 164 of Cr.P.C.
Exhibit-4/1 : Statement of victim girl under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C.
Exhibit-4/2 : Certificate of learned Magistrate.
7. On the other hand, the defence has examined one witness
named as Surendra Lohra (D.W.-1) and apart from oral
evidence, following documentary evidences were also
adduced by the defence.
Exhibit-A, A/1 &A/2 : Letters.
Exhibit-B : Certificate of Doctor.
Exhibit-C & C/1 : Medical certificate for age proof.
Exhibit-D : Signature of D.W.-1 on marriage
certificate.
Exhibit-D/1 : Signature of victim on marriage
certificate.
8. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence
available on record, held the appellant guilty for the
offence under Sections 366-A/34 and 376 of the I.P.C. and
sentenced as stated above.
9. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that there
was love affairs between the victim girl and the appellant
and both eloped with their consent. The victim had got
married with the appellant at her own will. She was never
kidnapped by the appellant. The appellant has not
procured the victim for the purpose of illicit intercourse
or for marriage with any other person. As such, no
offence under Section 366A of the I.P.C. is attracted
against the appellant. It is further submitted that
appellant has remained in custody about 5 years 9
months during trial of the case and maximum sentence
awarded to him is 7 years R.I.
10. It is further submitted that since appellant has faced the
agony of the trial more than 20 years and it is his first
offence, hence if his conviction is upheld, then a lenient
view may be taken on the point of sentence. He may be
sentenced for the imprisonment already undergone
instead of awarding substantive sentence which is
imposed by the learned trial court.
11. Per contra, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State has
opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the
appellant and submits that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the impugned judgment and order, calling for
any interference. This appeal has no merit and fit to be
dismissed.
12. I have gone through the entire record along with
impugned judgment, in the light of the argument raised
on behalf of both side.
13. It appears that altogether eight witnesses were examined
by the prosecution out of them the most important
witnesses are P.W.-1 Neelam Chaudhary, P.W.4, Deepak
Bharti (informant) and P.W.-5. (Victim).
14. P.W.-1 Neelam Chaudhary is the Doctor, who has
examined the victim girl on 20.12.2004. In her
examination-in-chief, she has stated that on 20.12.2004,
she was posted as Deputy Superintendent in Sadar
Hospital, Ranchi and has examined the victim girl and
found that the secondary character developed. During
examination, vaginal smear was taken and sent to
Pathology to see spermatozoa. X-Ray of wrist and pelvic
was also advised and after receipt of Radiology and
Pathology reports, which was received on 22.12.2004 and
01.01.2005, she has opined that the age of the victim girl
between 15-16 years. Since, in the Pathology report, dead
spermatozoa were found.
In cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion
of the victim girl was 19 years.
15. P.W.-4, Deepkar Bharti is the informant-cum-father of
the victim. In the examination-of-Chief, he has stated that
on 16.06.2004, at 07:00 AM, his daughter went to school,
but she did not return. Upon search, he came to know
that Manoj Lohra, Surendra Lohra (appellant), Jagarnath
Lohra and Sukku Lohra (father of the appellant) have
kidnapped his daughter. Appellant kidnapped her with
the help of co-accused persons with intention to marry
with the victim. After six month, the victim girl returned
to the house of her elder father, then he went to police
station. During cross examination, he has stated that his
daughter was kidnapped for the purpose of solemnizing
marriage, prior to occurrence, there was no visiting terms
between the appellant and the victim girl.
16. P.W.-5 is the victim girl, according to her evidence, on
16.06.2004, at 07:00 AM, when she was going to school, on
the way, appellant and other accused persons surrounded
her with firearms in their hands. She was given
intoxicating substance due to which she became
unconscious. She was kept confined about 5-6 months in
a room. Anyhow, she got chance and fled away to her
elder father's home. Thereafter, her father and elder
father informed at police station. During
cross-examination, she has stated that there was no love
affair between victim and appellant. She was not living
with the appellant as wife rather she was living
separately.
17. It appears from the deposition of the victim and her
father that both of them supported the prosecution story.
Therefore, the finding of the trial court appears to be
correct, legal and proper, requiring no interference on
merits by way of this appeal.
18. So far sentence awarded to the appellant is concerned,
admittedly out of seven years rigorous imprisonment, he
has undergone imprisonment for about five years nine
months during trial and after conviction. This is a case of
the year 2004 and since, then appellant has suffered the
agony of trial for the period of 20 years. Appellant has no
criminal background, hence, the imprisonment already
undergone by the appellant appears to be sufficient
punishment.
19. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, this appeal
is dismissed on merits. The conviction of appellant is
upheld with modification in sentence to the extent that
appellant is sentenced for the imprisonment already
undergone by him instead of imprisonment awarded by
learned Trial Court.
20. Appellant is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of
bail bond. Sureties shall also be discharged.
21. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record
be sent back to the court concerned for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi.
Dated: 17th January, 2025.
Simran/-NAFR
