The prosecution's failure to provide cogent evidence and independent corroboration resulted in the acquittal of the accused under Sections 366 and 376 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.

Heard Mr. Ravi Bhardwaj, Amicus Curiae for the appellant, and Mr. A.M.P. Mehta, learned APP for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 366 and 376 Indian Penal Code by the Judgment dated 17.12.2007 and Sentence of order dated 19.12.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge F.T.C. IInd Bettiah (West Champaran) in Sessions Trial No. 264 of 2001 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years in each sentence and also sentenced to fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees). The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case is that the informant namely Sk. Mustak filed a Written report to the Superintendent of police of West Champaran (Bettiah) on 08.07.1998 stating therein that he used to work in the house of Sk. Haroon for the last 6 years. During that period Sk. Haroon’s son Sk. Firoz enticed his daughter Kaushar Johan aged about 18 years and established illicit relations with her and thereby made her pregnant. The informant inquired about the matter but the accused persons threatened to kill the informant. He further alleged that on 05.07.1998 accused Sk. Firoz abducted the girl and took her away. He further alleged that on the same day all the accused persons kidnapped the informant from Jawakatiya Village and took him away to Village Lal Saraiya and confined him in a room and brutally assaulted him threatening that if he would talk about the alleged relationship between the victim girl and the accused Sk. Firoz, he would be killed. The police investigated the case and after completing the investigation submitted Charge-sheet against the appellant and other accused persons. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the same was pending in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge F.T.C. II^nd Bettiah (West Champaran) as Sessions Trial No.264 of 2001 (State Versus Sk. Firoz and others) for Trial.

4. During the course of trial the Prosecution altogether examined 7 prosecution witnesses: PW-1 Sk. Choukat (Co-Villager), PW-2- Sarman Nesha (Mother of the Victim). PW-3- Sk. Mustak Ahmad (Informant), PW-4 Sk. Akhtar (Co- Villager), PW-5 Kaushar Jahan (Victim), PW-6 Md. Mazid and PW-7 Ram Pyare Ram (IO). On the other hand, the defence produced one witness- DW-1, Ram Babu Tripathi (Judicial Magistrate who recorded victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.).

5. PW-1 stated in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place at 7:30 PM on 05.07.1998 on Sunday. He stated that Sk. Haroon, Sk. Javed, Sk. Saral, Sk. Feroz, Sk. Johar, Sk. Noordasar and Sk. Shamsheralam kidnapped the victim (PW-5) and forcefully caused her to abort the child she was carrying. He stated that the victim (PW-5) used to work at the house of Sk. Mustaq, Sk. Haroon. During this time, she had an illicit relationship with the son of Sk. Haroon, i.e. Sk. Firoz and she became pregnant, for which a panchayat was held in the village. He further stated that he was informed of the miscarriage by the villagers. He further stated that the accused/appellant brought the informant to Sk. Rauf's place and confined him in a room for two days and kept him hanging upside down where the appellant along with other accused persos assaulted the informant. He stated that after that he and other villagers freed the informant, Mustaq.

5.i. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that at the time of the incident the age of the victim was 12-13 years. He further stated that in the Panchayat that was held, there was no Maulvi or Panch. The members of the Panch did not do any investigation. He stated that before the Panchayat it was proved that Sk. Haroon had caused the miscarriage of the victim and the matter of abortion was proved to be true. He further stated that apart from the assault on the informant, he did not see any occurrence and his evidence was based on hearsay.

6. PW-2 is the wife of the informant. In her examination-in-chief she stated that her husband, the i