SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
KAILASH PRASAD DEO, J.
Rozan Mian @ Rojna Mian, son of late Sahadat Khan - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1599 of 2004
Decided On : 09-10-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Laxmi Murmu, Additional Public Prosecutor

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Sections 366 (A) and 376 - Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Act, 1989 - Section 3 - Rape - Undergo rigorous imprisonment – Appeal against conviction - Evidence of prosecution witnesses - Since was known to informant and her family members she has allowed appellant without any suspicion. The informant was waiting for her daughter but her daughter did not return and thereafter informant came to her house, informed her husband, who is suffering from paralysis and inquired whether their daughter has returned or not, upon which her husband disclosed that she has not returned. Thereafter, informant was waiting for return of her daughter but on the next date i.e. on Wednesday, at witness namely informed her that along with 3-4 unknown persons took the daughter of informant in a jeep towards informant has tried her best to search her daughter but could not get any information - Informant has claimed that with 3-4 persons have enticed her minor daughter and have taken her for illicit sexual intercourse – Held, of minor girl.- Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine - Further, nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to constitute an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 3 Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe a formal witness, has been examined as P.W. 6 and has proved formal F.I.R., which has been marked as Exhibit - Evidence brought on record including the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 suggest that appellant has stated before the learned trial court that appellant and the victim were having love affair and as per consent of the victim, both entered into matrimonial relationship which was known to the complainant and the appellant has further submitted that victim is happy as the marriage has been performed with her consent and they have now children and are residing happily but the complainant under some confusion has filed the present case - Considering the evidence brought on record, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge under Section 366 (A) of the Indian Penal Code as nothing has been brought on record to suggest that victim was minor or victim was taken for the purpose of seducing illicit intercourse - There is nothing on record to suggest that appellant has committed rape with victim as stated in reply to court question no. 12 and 13 by the victim - There is also no material to suggest that appellant is guilty of offence committed under Section 3 (i) (xii) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Act, 1989 - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 03.09.2004, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Gumla, in Sessions Trial No. 16 of 2000, whereby the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 366 (A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i) (xii) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each separately for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 366 (A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has further been awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence committed and punishable under Section 3 (i) (xii) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities Act), 1989. However, in case of default in payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. All the sentences are directed to run consecutively.

2. The prosecution case is based upon the complaint petition filed by Tarsisiya Khalkho (P.W. 2) before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gumla, which was registered as C 76/1999 for an occurrence committed on 13.04.1999. The complainant/informant has stated that her daughter Jyoti Khalkho, aged about 13 years went to telephone booth to talk with her elder daughter, who is residing at Delhi. The complainant has alleged that at around 11.00 A.M., the victim Jyoti Khalkho connected the phone and handed over the same to the complainant. It was stated that Jyoti Khalkho was talking with the appellant Rozan Mian @ Rojna Mian outside the telephone booth. The informant has seen, both victim and the appellant were talking in a pleasant mood. The informant came out of the telephone booth then, Rozan Mian told her that he is taking Jyoti Khalkho for stroll at Gumla market. Since Rozan Mian was known to the informant and her family members, she has allowed the appellant, without any suspicion. The informant was waiting for her daughter till 3.00 P.M. but her daughter did not return and thereafter informant came to her house, informed her husband, who is suffering from paralysis and inquired whether their daughter has returned or not, upon which her husband disclosed that she has not returned. Thereafter, informant was waiting for return of her daughter but on the next date i.e. on Wednesday, at around 9.00 A.M., witness no. 3, namely Kishor Bek informed her that Rozan Mian along with 3-4 unknown persons took the daughter of informant in a jeep towards Tangar Toli. The informant has tried her best to search her daughter but could not get any information. The informant has claimed that Rozan Mian along with 3-4 persons have enticed her minor daughter and have taken her for illicit sexual intercourse.

3. On the basis of complaint petition, which was referred to the local police station, Gumla under Section 156 (iii) of the Cr.P.C., police has registered Gumla P.S. Case No. 84 of 1999 dated 14.05.1999, under Section 366 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently, vide order dated 12.11.1999 Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code has also been added.

4. After investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet against the appellant vide charge sheet no. 193 of 1999, dated 30.11.1999, under Sections 366 (A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (xii) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989. It is made clear that during investigation, the statement of the victim Jyoti Khalkho has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 04.11.1999, where her age has been assessed as 17 years and the victim has disclosed her age to be 19 years.

5. The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 06.12.1999 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 11.01.2000.

6. Th


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top