2018 Supreme(Jhk) 796

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J.
Puspa Marandi, daughter of Late Hopna Marandi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1252 of 2004
Decided On : 25-09-2018

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 368, 366, 370 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Judgment Of Conviction – Written report of informant, P.W.5 before the Officer-in-charge, Pakuria Police Station, the informant has stated that, in the month of January, appellant came to her house at Rampur Hatia along with her daughter, aged about 18 years and stayed at her house for three to four hrs. – The informant thought that Puspa Marandi is the friend of her daughter Parbati Murmu. Puspa Marandi went away with the daughter of the informant. – The informant thought that they have gone somewhere. – After two to three days, when the informants daughter did not returned, then the informants Nephew, Somesh Marandi went to the house of Puspa Marandi at village -Soglay, but he did not found Puspa Marandi and Parbati Murmu. – Thereafter, the informant and others have searched Parbati Murmu in the house of her relatives, but even then she could not be traced. – During search, they got knowledge that Dular Murmu, daughter of Kuran Murmu, Tulshi Hansda, daughter of Matal Hansda and Didimoni Tudu, daughter of Majhuwa Tudu have also been taken away. – After three months Puspa Marandi returned to village-Parkunda. – On getting such information, the informant also reached to the village Parkunda and made query from Puspa Marandi about the whereabouts of her daughter. Puspa Marandi disclosed her that she took Parbati Murmu to Delhi. – The informant has also asked about the location and telephone number of the place of Parbati Murmu, but she did not disclosed and as such, hot talk took place between the informant and Puspa Marandi. Thereafter, the informant narrated about the incidence to her husband and family members. – Informants husband and other family members also went to village-Parkunda to make query from Puspa Marandi but could not met her. – Again Puspa Marandi was seen at village-Domen garia. – The informant has doubt that Puspa Marandi has taken away all the four girls to Delhi and had sold them. – Police registered First Information Report bearing Pakuria P.S. Case under Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code. – Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Pakur, in Sessions Case whereby, the appellant, has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine the appellant is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. – The learned trial Court has acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code. – Held, Court has scrutinized the evidence of prosecution witnesses. – From perusal of the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, this Court is of the opinion that ingredient of kidnapping or abduction is not available on record and the learned trial Court has rightly passed the judgment of acquittal against the appellant of charge under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, which has not been challenged by the State or by the informant before appropriate Court of law. – This Court has also perused the evidence brought on record. – The investigating officer, P.W.6 Ram Harish Nirala has categorically stated in his statement before the Court that Fulchand Das has stated before him that while they were inquiring from Puspa Marandi(appellant), it had transpired that four girls, namely Parbati Murmu (victim), Dular Murmu, Tulsi Hansda and Didimoni Tudu were enticed by Puspa Marandi and has taken the girls from their house but said Fulchand Das has been examined in this case as P.W.2 and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. – P.W.1 Durbeen Hansda and P.W.3 Somesh Marandi are hearsay witnesses, P.W.4 Huzur Murmu, farther of the victim is also hearsay witness and P.W.5, has not adduced any evidence to constitute an offence under Sections 366 or 368 of the Indian Penal Code. – Court is of the opinion that once the case has not been established under the principle offence i.e. under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and in absence of any material to constitute an offence under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code. – Court is of the opinion that the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence, cannot sustain in the eyes of law. – Criminal Appeal Allowed