Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 717
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J.
Guddu Ansari @ Salim Khan son of Asgar Khan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) Nos. 1520, 1105 & 1250 of 2003
Decided On : 06-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Lalji Sahay, Mr. Hemant Chakraborty
For the State : Mr. Nehru Mahto
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the benefit of doubt principle in criminal cases, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeals - Conviction under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code - 366A, 34 - The court acquitted the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the alleged kidnapping of a minor girl, Pinki Kumari, and her forced marriage. The prosecution's case was based on the written report filed by the victim's father, alleging that the accused kidnapped his daughter for the purpose of marriage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the victim's statements and the evidence presented, leading to doubts about the involvement of the accused. It concluded that there was no consistency in the involvement of the accused and acquitted them based on the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's statements, the involvement of the accused in the alleged kidnapping, and the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of consistency in the evidence and the benefit of doubt in favor of the accused, leading to their acquittal.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellants, discharging them from liability of their bail bonds.
The instant Criminal Appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of conviction dated 26.07.2003 and order of sentence, dated 28.07.2003, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. V, Dhanbad, in Sessions Case No. 356 of 2002, whereby three persons namely Guddu Ansari, Pradip Ram and Deepak Kumar Mahto@ Deepak Kumar Mistry have been convicted for the offence committed under Sections 366A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine further imprisonment for six months each. It is made clear that Guddu Ansari has died during pendency of the appeal and his criminal appeal (SJ) No. 1520/2003 has been dismissed as abated.
2. The prosecution case is based upon the written report filed by Babuchand Rajak (P.W. 2-father of the victim Pinki Kumari) before the Officer-in-Charge, Mahuda police station, Dhanbad on 16.04.2002, alleging therein, that his daughter aged about 16 years went to the house of her maternal grandmother which is situated adjacent to the house of the informant at a distance of 100 gaj on 11.04.2002 at around 8.00 P.M. The informant has further stated that his daughter used to visit the house of her maternal grandmother usually and on 11.04.2002 at around 9.30 P.M informant’s mother-in-law (Shanti Devi) came to the house of the informant and asked the informant whether Pinki has reached or not. Upon enquiry it was found that Pinki was missing. Thereafter it was alleged that Guddu Ansari was sitting on the roof of the house and was talking with Mistri and thereafter Pradip Ram of Mahuda More called Guddu Ansari and also gave a signal by his hand that it is late and thereafter Guddu came down and met with Deepak Kumar Mistry @ Deepak Kumar Mahto, who was standing on the road. After some time, it was found that Pinki Kumari is not present in the house. Thereafter, the mother-in-law of the informant started searching Pinki and disclosed entire fact to the informant, that Guddu Ansari, Deepak Kumar Mistry and Pinki are missing from their house. The informant made a hectic search but they could not found her and thereafter the informant gave a written report at the police station and a missing report was filed on 16.04.2002 claiming that Deepak Kumar Mistry, Guddu Ansari and Pradip Ram have kidnapped his minor daughter to entice her for the purpose of marriage by taking her at different places. On the basis of the written report, the police registered Baghmara (Mahuda) P.S. Case No. 68 of 2002 dated 16.04.2002, under Section 366 A of the Indian Penal Code.
3. After investigation police submitted charge sheet vide no. 96 of 2002 dated 15.06.2002 under Sections 366 A/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three accused persons. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 17.06.2002 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 25.07.2002. The charge has been framed against all the three accused persons under Section 366 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 11.09.2002 to which the appellants have pleaded their innocence and thus they were put under trial.
Prosecution has examined altogether nine witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents up to Exhibit- 4 and the photocopy of the letter written by the victim has been marked as Exhibit ‘X’, ‘X’/1 for identification, though the victim has denied that such letter has been written by her.
4. Shanti Devi (maternal grandmother of the victim) has been examined as P.W. 1, Babuchand Rajak (father of the victim) has been examined as P.W. 2, Meena Devi (mother of the victim) has been examined as P.W. 3, victim has been examined as P.W. 4, Dr. A. Mallick (who has examined the victim) on 07.06.2002 has been examined as P.W. 5, Deepu Rajak (cousin of the victim) has been examined as P.W. 6, Shankar Rajak (maternal uncle of the victim) has been examined as P.W. 7, Badeshwar S
